ERIC RICHARDS AND RONALD R. RICHARDS, APPELLANTS,
v.
BARRY A. WAX, APPELLEE
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 summary judgment was appropriate for negligence claims but not for the fraud claim due to unresolved issues regarding disclosure.
Appellants sued appellee for fraud, professional negligence, and negligence concerning a real estate transaction. The trial court granted summary judg…
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 Professional Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellants brought an action against appellee concerning a real estate transaction. Count I alleged fraud and deceit, Count II alleged professional negligence and Count III alleged negligence. The trial court first granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment as to Counts I and III, and appellants filed a notice of appeal. Later, the trial court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment as to Count II, and entered a final judgment against appellants. Appellants appealed the second summary judgment. The appeals are consolidated here.
We have considered the record, the briefs and oral arguments of the parties and determine that entry of summary judgment as to Counts II and III is correct. We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment as to Counts II and III. However, we hold the trial court erred in entering summary judgment as to Count I, which alleged fraud and deceit.
“[Fjraud is not ordinarily a suitable subject for summary judgment.” Levey v. Getelman, 408 So. 2d 663, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). “[I]t is a subtle thing requiring a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to determine if they collectively constitute a fraud.” Amazon v. Davidson, 390 So. 2d 383, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Unresolved issues exist relative to appellee Wax’s failure to disclose to appellants the existence of a mortgage listed on the title insurance binder in Wax’s possession. We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment as to Count I and remand with instructions that the case proceed to trial.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with instructions.
DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Johnson, 538 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…l v. Lapointe, 426 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In light of the many issues of material fact in this case, the appellees clearly did not carry their burden of demonstrating that the Youngs could not prevail. See Snyder. See also, Richards v. Wax, 511 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur. . See § 733.619(2), Fla.Stat. (1983). See abo, Zeleny v. Kamosh, 224 Or. 419, 356 P. 2d…
-
Brock v. G.D. Searle & Co., 530 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…to be determined by summary judgment as they almost invariably involve a jury question as to whether the complete facts and circumstances collectively demonstrate fraud. Elmore v. Vatrano, 485 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); accord, Richards v. Wax, 511 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). As appellants point out, the fact that the motion was initially styled as a motion in limine did not affect the 20-day notice requirement if it is ultimately to be treated as a motion for summary judg [*431] ment. “[T]rial court…
-
Charles W. Grimes & Brenda Grimes v. Lottes, 241 So. 3d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…arty acting in reliance on the representation.' " Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102, 105 (Fla. 2010) (quoting Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla. 1985)). "[F]raud is not ordinarily a suitable subject for summary judgment." Richards v. Wax, 511 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (alteration in original) (quoting Levey v. Getelman, 408 So. 2d 663, 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)). "[I]t is a ---PAGE 7--- subtle thing requiring a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to deter…
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
- Evelyn Amazon v. Davidson, 390 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Burton Levey v. Getelman, 408 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)