DR. M.A. MANNISH, APPELLANT,
v.
LORENZO E. LACAYO AND KEN STANOJEVICH, 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.
Dr. Mannish appealed an adverse summary judgment and directed verdict in a fraud action against agents Lacayo and Stanojevich. The court reversed, holding that agents can be personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentations made within the scope of their agency, and that a plaintiff's mistaken belief about his legal rights cannot extinguish those rights.
Agents are not immune from liability for fraud perpetrated within the course and scope of their agency, even when acting on behalf of a corporate principal. A party's mistaken belief regarding his legal rights cannot extinguish those rights and does not justify summary judgment in the defendant's favor.
[1] An agent is liable for fraud perpetrated within the course and scope of the agency, even when acting on behalf of a principal.
[2] A party's mistaken belief regarding their legal rights does not extinguish those rights.
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“an agent, as well as his principal, is liable for fraud perpetrated by the agent within the course and scope of his agency”
Establishes the core holding that agents cannot escape personal liability for fraud merely because they acted as agents for a corporate principal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Mannish brought a fraud action against Lorenzo E. Lacayo and Ken Stanojevich, alleging they made fraudulent misrepresentations of fact while actin…
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 Reliance On Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from an adverse final judgment entered upon a motion for summary judgment for one defendant and a motion for directed verdict for another defendant in a fraud action. The fraud action below was brought by the plaintiff Dr. M.A. Mannish against the defendants Lorenzo E. Lacayo and Ken Sta-nojevich. The plaintiffs evidence adduced below tended to show that (a) the defendants, acting as agents for their principal [a corporation], made certain fraudulent misrepresentations of fact to the plaintiff, (b) the plaintiff relied on these misrepresentations to his detriment, and (c) suffered a loss of half a million dollars as a result. We reverse the final judgment under review and remand for a new trial based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
First, the defendants herein are not immune from liability in this cause because they were acting as agents for their princi pal, a corporation, when they engaged in the alleged tortious misrepresentations. The law is clear that an agent, as well as his principal, is liable for fraud perpetrated by the agent within the course and scope of his agency. Wheeler v. Baars, 33 Fla. 696, 15 So. 584 (1894); Blake v. Munce, 426 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 348 (1958).
Second, the fact that the plaintiff testified in deposition that he did not believe that the defendant Stanojevich was personally liable for his misrepresentations did not justify the entry of a summary judgment in favor of said defendant. A party’s mistaken belief as to his legal rights, as here, cannot possibly extinguish those rights. LaGasse v. Aetna Insurance Co., 213 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), rev’d on other grounds, 223 So. 2d 727 (Fla.1969).
Third, we have examined the record and find no merit in the other asserted basis for the judgment below. See Fulmer v. Northern Central Bank, 386 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 394 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1981); City National Bank of Miami v. Simmons, 351 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomson McKINNON Sec., Inc. v. Light, 534 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ration’s creditors. Tourismart of Am., Inc. v. Gonzalez, 498 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (agent for corporation not shielded from liability for issuance of checks with knowledge that there were insufficient funds to cover them); Mannish v. Lacayo, 496 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (corporate agents are not immune from liability for their tortious misrepresentations merely because they were acting as agents for the corporation); see generally H. Henn & J. Alexander, Laws of Corporations § 230 (1983). No fact…
-
Vazquez Int'l, Inc. v. Seldis Espanola, S.A., 647 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
-
Kimmons v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., 844 F. Supp. 738 (M.D. Fla. 1994)…n the wrong”); *740 Touristmart of America, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 498 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (involving specific allegations that the corporate officer personally and knowingly issued worthless corporate checks); Mannish v. Lacayo, 496 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (involving corporate agents that knowingly made false statements to the plaintiff); Adams v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 388 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (holding that corporate officers are “no less personally liable for…
Authorities Cited
- Wheeler v. Baars, 33 Fla. 696 (Fla. 1894)
- AETNA Ins. Co. v. LaGASSE, 223 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 1969)
- Fulmer v. N. Cent. Bank, 386 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Blake v. G.M. Munce & Blake & Cole, P.A., 426 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- LaGASSE v. AETNA Ins. Co., 213 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- City Nat'l Bank OF Miami v. Simmons, 351 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)