CENTURY 21 ADMIRAL'S PORT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ADMIRAL'S PORT NORTH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM H. WALKER, JR. AND AMERIFIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A UNITED STATES CORPORATION, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
Century 21 Admiral’s Port, Inc. and Admiral’s Port North, Inc. appeal dismissal of their complaint alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. We affirm on a holding that since the time for performance was left subject to future agreement, the appellants had no right to rely on the representation made. Cf. Bruce v. American Development Corp., 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (real estate broker had no right to rely on prospective purchaser’s statement that it was ready, willing and able to buy); Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 595 P. 2d 172 (1979) (promise too indefinite to be relied upon); Grosser v. Kandel-Iken Builders, Inc., 647 S.W. 2d 911 (Mo.Ct.App.1983) (statement too vague to support an action for fraudulent misrepresentation).
Affirmed.
The only point we address on the motion for rehearing is appellants’ request that we allow leave to amend their already twice-amended complaint. We refuse the request on the ground that appellants’ failure to seek leave to amend prior to the dismissal with prejudice or to move for rehearing requesting leave to amend, precludes consideration of the issue for the first time on appeal. Johnson v. RCA Corp., 395 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hohenberg v. Kirstein, 349 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Vorbeck v. Betancourt, 107 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…we would not have been able to address the claim because the record does not disclose that the Jelencs ever requested the opportunity to amend, and thus, the issue was not preserved for appellate review.”); Century 21 Admiral’s Port, Inc. v. Walker, 471 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that the “appellants’ failure to seek leave to amend prior to the dismissal with prejudice or to move for rehearing requesting leave to amend, precludes consideration of the issue for the first time on appeal”); see…
-
Lutz v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 951 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…for the first time on appeal that he should have been afforded an opportunity to amend his complaint on the breach of contract claim. As a result, we are unable to consider the merits of this argument. See Century 21 Admiral’s Port, Inc. v. Walker, 471 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (on rehearing) (stating “[w]e refuse the request on the ground that appellants’ failure to seek leave to amend prior to the dismissal with prejudice or to move for rehearing requesting leave to amend, precludes consideration…
-
Stander v. Dispoz-O-Products, Inc., 973 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…not raise the issue of amendment for the first time on appeal. Lutz v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 951 So. 2d 884, 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Merkle v. Health Options, Inc., 940 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Century 21 Admiral's Port, Inc. v. Walker, 471 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Johnson v. RCA Corp., 395 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). As we noted earlier, the defendant moved to dismiss the complaint because the complaint contained no facts, and the conclusions were insufficient to make the defenda…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bruce v. Am. Dev. Corp. & Kenneth Mamula, 408 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Sanchez v. State, 349 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Johnson v. RCA Corp. & The Travelers Ins. Co., 395 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)