JACK AND YOLANDE JOSEPH, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN LAPORTE REALTY, INC., ANNIE MONTGOMERY, EQUITABLE RELOCATION MANAGEMENT CORP., SALLY DYSART, INC., RICHARD J. BARRETT AND MARILYN BARRETT, HIS WIFE, AND EDWARD MONTGOMERY, 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.
The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently alleged all elements of actionable fraud or misrepresentation, including reliance through their agent.
[1] A complaint alleging fraud or misrepresentation is legally sufficient when it pleads all the elements of actionable fraud or misrepresentation.
[2] Fraudulent misrepresentations made to a plaintiff's agent can support a claim for fraud or misrepresentation if the plaintiff relied on the agent's report, which in turn…
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 intelligencePlaintiffs purchased a home based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the defendant about a swimming pool's condition to an inspection co…
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 Agent cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs Jack and Yolande Joseph from a final order dismissing their complaint against the defendant Edward Montgomery in an action sounding in fraud and misrepresentation involving multiple defendants. We reverse based on the following briefly stated legal analysis.
The action arises from the plaintiffs’ purchase of a home with an allegedly defective swimming pool. It is alleged that the defendant Edward Montgomery, with requisite fraudulent intent, made certain factual misrepresentations concerning the condition of the subject swimming pool to an independent pool inspection company which had been hired by the plaintiff to inspect the pool. The defendant Edward Montgomery was hired, in turn, by the salesperson of the seller’s real estate broker to advise and, allegedly, to defraud the plaintiffs on the condition of the pool. The plaintiffs, it is alleged, relied to their detriment on these misrepresentations and purchased the home based, in part, on such misrepresentations.
All the elements of actionable fraud or misrepresentation, in our view, are alleged in this complaint against the defendant Edward Montgomery. The fact that Montgomery’s alleged fraudulent misrepresentations were made to the plaintiffs’ agent — a pool inspection company — cannot, as urged, negate the element of reliance as (a) the pool inspection company allegedly relied on these misrepresentations, (b) the plaintiffs relied on the pool company’s report, and (c) the plaintiffs therefore relied through their agent on Montgomery’s alleged misrepresentations. See Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla.1985); Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995, 998 (Fla.1980); Gold v. Perry, 456 So. 2d 1197, 1200-01 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
We have not overlooked the defendant’s contrary arguments, but find them unpersuasive. The final order of dismissal under review is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
BDO Seidman v. Banco Espirito Santo Int'l, 38 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…d. Banco also argues that it may prove reliance by indirect means. Banco maintains that the noteholders relied on Banco, which in turn relied on BDO’s financial statements. For this proposition Banco relies on Joseph v. Novman LaPorte Realty, Inc., 508 So. 2d 496, 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), which involved construction of a swimming pool. The present case involves accountant liability, on which Max Mitchell is controlling. This part of Banco’s argument runs counter to Max Mitchell and illustration 10 of section…
-
Ray Cruise & Epic Mortg. & Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Graham, 622 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…. 3d DCA 1989) (“Generally, an attorney serves as agent for his client; the attorney’s acts are the acts of the principal, the client.”); Kates v. Millheiser, 569 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (same); see also Joseph v. Norman LaPorte Realty, Inc., 508 So. 2d 496, 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (legally irrelevant that fraudulent misrepresentations were made to the plaintiffs’ agent rather than to them directly). Additionally, appellee’s attorney, Stephen Covert, in response to appellants’ motion for summary judgme…
-
Williams Elec. Co., Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc., 772 F. Supp. 1225 (N.D. Fla. 1991)…various enumerations of the elements of fraud found in the Florida cases generally employ wording which suggests that there must be reliance by the plaintiff. The only Florida case cited by Williams, Joseph v. Norman La Porte Realty, Inc., 508 So.2d 496 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), is dis *1239 tinct. In Joseph, the defendant, an agent of a realty broker, made misrepresentations to a swimming pool inspection company hired by the buyers. The inspection company erroneously reported that the pool w…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Morton Davis and Edna Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985)
- Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1980)
- Raymond H. Wood, Jr., D.D.S. v. State, 456 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)