THOMAS BONGARD, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT WINTER AND KENNETH FELDMAN, 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.
Bongard appealed the dismissal of counts I and III of his complaint against attorneys Winter and Feldman for fraud and securities violations. The court reversed, holding that attorneys can be held liable for their own fraudulent misrepresentations even when acting on behalf of disclosed clients, and that misrepresentations concerning future intent can constitute actionable fraud.
An attorney may properly be held liable for his or her own fraudulent misrepresentations even when acting on behalf of a disclosed client. A present misrepresentation concerning future intent may form the basis for actionable fraud where the party making the misrepresentation knows at the time that it is false. Therefore, Bongard's count I properly alleged all essential elements of fraud and count III was properly grounded on section 517.301, Florida Statutes.
[1] An attorney may be held liable for his or her own fraudulent misrepresentations, even when acting on behalf of a disclosed client.
[2] A present misrepresentation concerning a future intent can form the basis for actionable fraud if the party making the misrepresentation knows it to be false at the time.
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 attorney may properly be held liable for his or her own fraudulent misrepresentations even if acting on behalf of a disclosed client”
Establishes the core holding that attorneys cannot escape liability for their own fraud merely by claiming to represent a client.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBongard filed a complaint against attorneys Robert Winter and Kenneth Feldman alleging fraud and other claims. The attorneys moved to dismiss counts I…
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 Civil Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the trial court’s order to the extent that it granted Robert Winter’s and Kenneth Feldman’s motions to dismiss counts I and III of Thomas Bon-gard’s complaint for failing to state causes of action. As Bongard correctly points out, an attorney may properly be held liable for his or her own fraudulent misrepresentations even if acting on. behalf of a disclosed client. See Zafiris, Inc. v. Moss, 506 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Gold v. Wolkowitz, 430 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 437 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1983); see also Shee-Con, Inc. v. Al Seim Appraisal Serv., Inc., 427 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (agent liable for own fraud); cf. Adams v. Chenowith, 349 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (recognizing that attorney may be liable to client’s adversary if attorney commits non-negligent tort such as fraud).
Furthermore, a present misrepresentation concerning a future intent may form the basis for actionable fraud where the party making the misrepresentation is aware at the time that it is in fact false. See Vance v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So. 2d 1367, 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Travelodge Int’l, Inc. v. Eastern Inns, Inc., 382 So. 2d 789; 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 285 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1973).
Consequently, since count I of Bongard’s complaint properly alleged all the essential elements of fraud, the trial court improperly dismissed it. Following therefrom, the trial court improperly dismissed count III grounded upon section 517.301, Florida Statutes (1985).
See § 517.211(2), Fla.Stat. (1985).
We have considered Bongard’s other points and have determined that the trial court properly dismissed the remaining counts of his complaint for civil conspiracy, see American Credit Card Tel. Co. v. National Pay Tel. Corp., 504 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Lawler v. Eugene Wuesthoff Memorial Hosp. Assoc., 497 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Buckner v. Lower Florida Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Jewel Foliage Co. v. Uniflora Overseas Florida Inc., 497 F.Supp. 513 (M.D.Fla.1980), civil theft, see Futch v. Head, 511 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1151 (Fla.1986), and breach of fiduciary duty, see Angel, Cohen & Rogovin v. Oberon Invs., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla.1987); Adams, 349 So. 2d at 230.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order as it pertains to counts I and III is reversed, and this cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lindi Diana Wadlington v. Cont'l Med. Servs., Inc., 907 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…t any intention of performing or made with the positive intention not to perform” a cause of action for fraud may proceed to a jury. Id. at 1372 (citing Home Seekers’ Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7, 135 So. 402 (1931)); see also Bongard v. Winter, 516 So. 2d 27, 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[A] present misrepresentation concerning a future intent may form the basis for actionable fraud where the party making the misrepresentation is aware at the time that it is in fact [*633] false.”) (citing Vance, 403 So. 2d…
-
Richard Bertram, Inc. v. Sterling Bank & Tr., 820 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…es separate from the principal’s interest. See id. at 181. However, a personal stake by Wald was neither pled nor suggested in this record. Finally, although an attorney may be liable for his or her own fraudulent statements, see Bongard v. Winter, 516 So. 2d 27, 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), appellants have not offered proof of any statements which could be considered fraudulent. Thus, we agree with the trial court that summary judgment was proper where no material facts were in dispute. Affirmed. FARMER and TA…
-
Jocelyn Rothstein v. Honeywell, Inc., 519 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…ew, the trial court correctly limited damages on the breach of contract claim. I agree with the majority, however, that Ms. Rothstein states a viable cause of action for fraud in Count III of her amended complaint. See Bongard v. Winter & Feldman, 516 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (present misrepresentation concerning future intent may form basis for actionable fraud where party making misrepresentation is aware at the time that it is in fact false).…
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 (16 total)
- Murray Rosen v. Marlin, 486 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Ashland OIL, Inc. v. Rod Pickard, 269 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Angel v. Oberon Inv., N.V., 512 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 1987)
- John W. Buckner, M.D. v. The Lower Fla. Keys Hosp. Dist., 403 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Futch v. Head, 511 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Vance v. Indian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Ltd., 403 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ashland OIL, Inc. v. Rod Pickard, 285 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1973)
- Adams v. Reuben J. Chenowith, 349 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Modern Fiber Glass, Inc. v. Rod Pickard, 285 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1973)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Supino, 497 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)