RONALD R. SLEIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
SUN AND SURF REALTY, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conspiracy To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
[*999] JORGENSON, Judge.
Ronald Sleight, defendant below, appeals from an adverse judgment following a jury trial awarding Sun and Surf Realty, plaintiff below, $20,000 actual damages and $100,000 punitive damages. The alleged cause of action arose out of a real estate commission agreement involving the sale of the Hurricane Motor Lodge in Monroe County, Florida. Count 2 of the amended complaint (the only count involving Mr. Sleight) sounded in common law fraud and conspiracy to defraud. Evidence adduced during the course of the trial disclosed that the cooperating brokers had agreed to a reduced commission of $20,000 (secured by a promissory note) which was to be paid some six months after the closing. The closing occurred on February 1,1978. Neither broker took any action to collect the commission until after August, 1978.
Florida law is well-settled that a misrepresentation must ordinarily relate to a past or existing fact to be the basis of a claim for relief sounding in fraud. Upchurch v. Mizell, 50 Fla. 456, 40 So. 29 (1905). A false statement amounting to a promise to do something in the future is not actionable fraud. Stoler v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 287 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Evans v. Gray, 215 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), cert. denied, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1969); 27 Fla.Jur.2d, “Fraud and Deceit” § 24. The record before us is entirely devoid of any evidence to support a theory of fraud or conspiracy to defraud. Accordingly, the judgment below is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for appellant.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Rufus Palmer, M.D. v. Santa FE Healthcare Sys., Inc., 582 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…offer. A fraudulent misrepresentation is ordinarily actionable only as to statements of past or existing facts, and a promise of future conduct generally will not serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud. See Sleight v. Sun and Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). While the appellant’s claim is partly foundationed on promises as to future acts, he has also asserted misrepresentations relating to Santa Fe’s plans and intentions at the time of the parties’ negotiations. A promise as to futur…
-
Eastern Cement v. Halliburton Co., 600 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…deliver the buyer’s precise operation. In exchange for that promise, the buyer contracted to pay for the system. “A false statement amounting to a promise to do something in the future is not actionable fraud.” Sleight v. Sun and Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). Rather, it must be shown that “the promisor had a specific intent not to perform at the time the promise was made.” Century Properties, Inc. v. Machtinger, 448 So. 2d 570, 572 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). See also Alexander Davis Prope…
-
Wilson v. The Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y OF the United States, 622 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…s’n, 541 So. 2d 1334, 1335 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 549 So. 2d 1014 (Fla.1989). We note that a statement of future performance, expectation, or promise is frequently insufficient to support a claim of fraud. Sleight v. Sun & Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). This record suggests that the “guaranteed” salary of $80,000 may simply have been a prediction. Mr. Wilson will need to prove that Mr. Levy’s promise to undertake the retirement fund payment in the future was made without any int…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Upchurch v. Jackson Mizell and William Mizell, 50 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1905)
- Evans v. Gray, 215 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Bassham v. State, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1969)
- Pepin & Campbell Ins. Co. v. Johns, 222 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1969)
- Stoler v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. & Harold Wolf, 287 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)