DAVID L. JAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
DOUGLAS E. NAUMANN AND SHARON NAUMANN, 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.
James appealed a judgment dismissing his fraud claim against the Naumanns regarding a real estate transaction. The court affirmed, holding that an unfulfilled expectation of financial return from property does not constitute fraudulent representation, particularly where the sales agreement explicitly stated the purchaser's decision was based on his own inspection and investigation.
The court held that the mere failure of property to appreciate as expected does not constitute fraudulent representation. The court affirmed that exculpatory language in the agreement, combined with the fact that James relied on his own investigation rather than representations, defeats the fraud claim.
[1] A contractual provision stating a purchaser's decision to buy was based on personal inspection and investigation, not on any statement or representation by the seller's a…
[2] The expression of an expectancy of financial return in a real estate transaction does not equate to a fraudulent or tortious purpose when the expectancy is not fulfilled.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Purchaser's decision to buy was based on his inspection and investigation of the property and not on any statement or representation of said company and it's associates”
Language from the sales agreement that established James relied on his own investigation, defeating fraud claims based on alleged misrepresentations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames purchased real property through Naumann & Associates, Inc. He later claimed the Naumanns fraudulently represented that the property would produc…
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 Fraudulent Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Our examination of the record in this matter reveals the following language within the Sales Agreement, not brought to our attention by the parties, which we deem conclusive of the claim that the defendants/appellees fraudulently represented that the real property in question would produce a substantial yield and increase in value in future years:
17. It is agreed that through the instrumentality of Naumann & Associates, Inc., the Purchaser became interested in said property but that Purchaser’s decision to buy was based on his inspection and investigation of the property and not on any statement or representation of said company and it’s associates; and shall not be liable or responsible for failure or default of their principal in carrying out the terms and conditions of this agreement.
We recognize that exculpatory language in an agreement often may not serve as a shield against an intentional tort, Mankap Enterprises, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services, 427 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), but we find no compelling authority upon which to sustain the view that the expression of an expectancy of financial return equates with a fraudulent or tortious purpose when ultimately the expectancy is not fulfilled. The vagaries of a dynamic economy, especially as they are known to affect real property in Florida, simply will not permit the formulation of a principle that a fraudulent representation will be deemed to have occurred at the moment when the real estate transaction was consummated because of a later decline in property value. Neither Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla.1980), nor our decision in Foxfire Inn of Stuart, Fla. v. Neff, 433 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), requires that result.
The trial court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.
RYDER, C.J., and OTT and FRANK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leviton v. Philly Steak-Out, Inc., 533 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…e issues of material fact remained in the case as to the defendants’ answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim. See Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368, 370 (Fla.1979); Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780, 783 (Fla.1965); James v. Naumann, 464 So. 2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985); Eastland Inv. Co. v. Baker, 344 So. 2d 882, 883 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 354 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1977). Third, the remainder of the points raised on appeal have no merit and require…
Authorities Cited
- Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1980)
- Mankap Enters., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 427 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Foxfire INN OF Stuart v. Neff, 433 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)