PENINSULAR FLORIDA DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, APPELLANT,
v.
PAN AMERICAN INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HELLER, WEAVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ALFRED D. GRIFFIN, SR., AND MARY CATHERINE GRIFFIN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A church organization appealed the dismissal of its fraud and negligence claims against a real estate developer and surveying company. The court reversed the dismissal of the fraud count, finding sufficient allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding real estate boundaries, but affirmed the dismissal of the negligence count against the surveying company for lack of an established legal duty.
The court reversed dismissal of Count I, holding that the plaintiff adequately pleaded all essential elements of fraudulent conduct with sufficient specificity. The court affirmed dismissal of Count II, holding that the plaintiff failed to allege facts establishing a legal duty between Heller and the plaintiff, as no contractual relationship or obligation was alleged.
[1] A complaint alleging fraud must plead the facts and circumstances constituting the fraud with specificity and state all essential elements of fraudulent conduct, includin…
[2] When fraud in the inducement is alleged, a plaintiff need not plead that they were precluded from discovering the truth of misrepresented facts, provided the complaint al…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When fraud is asserted as a claim or defense, the facts and circumstances constituting the fraud must be pled with specificity, Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.120(b), and all essential elements of fraudulent conduct must be stated, i.e., that plaintiff relied to his detriment on a false statement concerning a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity and an intent to induce reliance.”
Establishes the pleading standard and essential elements required for fraud claims in Florida.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeninsular Florida District Council of Assemblies of God purchased real property from Pan American Investment and Development Corporation. Pan America…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Duty Of Care In Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing both counts of its complaint for failure to state a cause of action. We reverse as to Count I and affirm as to Count II.
With respect to Count I, we find the allegations of fraud against defendant Pan American Investment and Development Corp. (“Pan American”) sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. When fraud is asserted as a claim or defense, the facts and circumstances constituting the fraud must be pled with specificity, Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.120(b), and all essential elements of fraudulent conduct must be stated, i.e., that plaintiff relied to his detriment on a false statement concerning a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity and an intent to induce reliance. George Hunt, Inc. v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 348 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
When fraud in the inducement is alleged, plaintiff need not plead that he was precluded from discovering the truth as to misrepresented facts, provided that the complaint alleges reasonable reliance on material representations of existing fact. Avila South Condominium, Association v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1977).
In this case, plaintiff alleged that an agent of defendant Pan American made false representations regarding the boundary of certain real estate which it sold to plaintiff, that Pan American corroborated the false representations by furnishing it with an inaccurate drawing prepared by its president with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that plaintiff would rely on it. In addition, plaintiff alleged that it reasonably relied on the false representations to its detriment, and suffered damages represented by the difference in the value of the parcel actually received with the parcel it bargained for in contracting with Pan American.
We find that those allegations adequately set forth the specific facts constituting fraud as well as all the elements of a cause of action in fraud, and therefore hold that the trial court erred by dismissing Count I.. Cf. Parker v. Gordon, 442 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Midway Shopping Mall, Inc. v. Airtech Air Conditioning, Inc., 253 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); General Dynamics Corp. v. Hewitt, 225 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).
In Count II plaintiff attempted to state an action in negligence against defendant Heller, Weaver and Associates, Inc., (“Heller”). It alleged that the president of Pan American made the false survey referred to in Count I on paper bearing Heller’s name, address and logo by copying from an accurate drawing prepared by Heller. Additionally, plaintiff alleged that Heller knew or should have known that its paper was thus being used by Pan American because of its prior dealings with Pan American in which it permitted Pan American’s president to use its property and facilities, yet it remained passive while plaintiff relied on the survey under the mistaken belief that it was prepared by a Heller employee.
We hold that Count II was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action because it does not state facts establishing a relationship between Heller and the plaintiff from which the law implies a legal duty. The result may have been otherwise had plaintiff alleged that the inaccurate survey was produced by Heller pursuant to some contractual obligation which it assumed, cf. A.R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla.1973); Drexel Properties, Inc. v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 406 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), petition rev. denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1982), but the complaint is devoid of any such allegation. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of Count II for failure to state a cause of action.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
DOWNEY, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raymond v. Zumstorchen Inv., Ltd., 488 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…its detriment on a false statement concerning a material fact made with knowledge of its falsity and an intent to induce reliance. See, e.g., Peninsular Florida District Council of Assemblies of God v. Pan American Investment and Development Corp., 450 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also American [*846] International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 328 So. 2d 567 (Fla.1975). Raymond claimed that as a result of its reliance on Alexander and Schwartz’s statements and omissions of material fact, it bought the securi…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013)…ies. SOURCES AND AUTHORITIES FOR 416.28 1. Fraud must be pled as an affirmative defense or it is waived. Cocoves v. Campbell, 819 So. 2d 910, 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Peninsular Fla. Dist. Council of Assemblies of God v. Pan Am. Inv. & Dev. Corp., 450 So. 2d 1231, 1232 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Ash Chem., Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 706 So. 2d 362, 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 2. In order to raise an affirmative defense of fraud, the “pertinent facts and circumstances constituting fraud must be pled with spe…
-
Gordon v. Etue, Wardlaw & Co., P.A., 511 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…la. 2d DCA 1986); Schryburt v. Olesen, 475 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Rubens v. Glinsky, 473 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). For example, in Peninsular Florida District Council of Assemblies of God v. Pan American Investment and Development Corp., 450 So. 2d 1231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), a complaint [*391] was held to have satisfied the particularity-test by alleging that an agent of the defendant made false representations regarding the boundary of certain real estate which it sold to the plaintiff; that the pr…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Avila S. Condo. Ass'n v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1976)
- A. R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1973)
- Drexel Props., Inc. v. BAY Colony Club Condo., Inc., 406 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Hewitt, 225 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Midway Shopping Mall, Inc. v. Airtech AIR Conditioning, Inc., 253 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Parker v. Gordon, 442 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- George Hunt, Inc. v. Wash-Bowl, Inc., 348 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)