JAMES M. CHRISTIAN, APPELLANT,

v.

TANDY CORPORATION, D/B/A MCDUFF ELECTRONICS AND APPLIANCES, AND CNA INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Flemenbaum v. Lily Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
  …ted with such particularity as the circumstances may permit.” This means that a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must clearly and concisely set out the essential facts of the fraud, and not just legal conclusions. See Cady v. Chevy Chase Sav. and Loan, Inc., 528 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Reina v. Gingerale Corp., 472 So. 2d 530, 531-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the fraud. Shienvold v. Habie, 627 So. 2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
• Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 155 So. 3d 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
  …not objectionable if they are supported by sufficient allegations of ultimate facts.’ ” Steigman v. Danese, 502 So. 2d 463, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (quoting Trawick, Fla. Prac. and Proc. § 6-6 (1985)); see also Cady v. Chevy Chase Sav. & Loan, Inc., 528 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (“Certainty is required when pleading ..., and pleading conclusions of law unsupported by allegations of ultimate fact is legally insufficient.”) (citations omitted). The vague, ambiguous, and conclusory statement that Chase…
• Thompson v. The Bank OF NEW York, 862 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
  …Thompson than to the seller; Thompson had to know his own financial capacity better than a stranger. The trial court was correct that Thompson failed to set forth a defense of fraud. This case is similar to Cady v. Chevy Chase Savings & Loan, Inc., 528 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In Cady, the borrower attempted to raise fraud as an affirmative defense to a mortgage foreclosure. We held that the borrower had failed to plead fraud “with particularity as is required,” so that it was insufficient as a matter…