THOMAS E. DANIEL, ET UX., APPELLANTS,
v.
COASTAL BONDED TITLE CO., ET AL., 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 Daniels appealed the dismissal of their complaint against a title company that failed to disclose known encroachments on their property before closing. The court reversed, finding that the complaint stated valid causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud based on the title company's failure to disclose the encroachments despite having knowledge of them.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that counts III and IV state a cause of action for failure to disclose the existence of easements and encroachments that were known to Coastal prior to closing, and that counts V and VI may also state a cause of action if the failure to disclose was done with fraudulent intent to induce the Daniels to close.
[1] A trial court may err in dismissing a complaint with prejudice without providing notice or a hearing to the plaintiff.
[2] A title insurance commitment may except coverage for easements or claims of easements not shown by public records and matters disclosed by a survey.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“we think counts III and IV state a cause of action for failure to disclose prior to closing the existence of the easements and encroachments allegedly then known to Coastal”
Establishes the court's core holding that the title company's fiduciary duty includes disclosure of known defects prior to closing, separate from the scope of insurance coverage
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Daniels purchased a home in Hernando County, Florida in June 1984, with Coastal Bonded Title Co. serving as closing agent and title insurance agen…
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 Fraud And Deceit cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Chief Judge.
We grant the motion for clarification, withdraw the prior opinion and substitute therefor the following opinion. Thomas and Janice Daniel appeal from the dismissal of their third amended complaint with prejudice. They argue that the trial court erred in finding their complaint failed to state a cause of action, and that the court erred in dismissing their complaint without a hearing, or notice of impending dismissal if not further amended within a stated time pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b); Edward L. Nezelek Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corporation, 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 424 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1982). Because we think that Daniel’s third amended complaint asserts several valid causes of action, we do not reach the procedural grounds.
This suit commenced after the Daniels purchased a home and lot in Hernando County, Florida, in June of 1984. Coastal Bonded Title Co. (Coastal) acted as closing agent for the Daniels as well as title insurance agent for First American Title Company. At the closing, Coastal delivered a commitment for title insurance to the Daniels which contained a standard exception for “easements or claims of easements, not shown by the public records” and “encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey or inspection of the premises.” After the closing was complete, the agent added a handwritten exception for a “2.8’ encroachment in rear utility easement as shown on survey.”
The Daniels allege that at the time of the closing, Coastal had in its possession a survey which showed encroachments on the north, south and east boundaries of the property. When Coastal issued the title insurance policy to the Daniels, all of the easements and encroachments were excepted from coverage. The Daniels further allege that they have been damaged by these title defects because they have been unable to sell or refinance the property, and they were not provided with the option of not closing due to the encroachments.
The third amended complaint asserts seven counts: Count I — General Allegations; Count II — Breach of the Insurance Contract; Count III — Intentional Breach of a Fiduciary Duty; Count IV — Negligent Breach of a Fiduciary Duty; Count V— Fraud and Deceit; Count VI — Punitive Damages; and a seventh count (incorrectly numbered in the Third Amended Complaint as Count V) — Denial of Insurance Benefits.
Coastal and American urge that the title commitment did not undertake to insure against encroachments or easements not of record, which would be disclosed by a survey. While we agree that the title defects complained of by the Daniels are clearly excepted by the commitment language,1 we think counts III and IV state a cause of action for failure to disclose prior to closing the existence of the easements and encroachments allegedly then known to Coastal. See Connelly v. Special Road & Bridge Dist. No. 5, 99 Fla. 456, 126 So. 794 (1930); Sudberry v. Lowke, 403 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Further, if the failure to disclose was done with a fraudulent intent to induce the Daniels to close to promote the title company’s self-interest, count V and VI may also state a cause of action. See Dale v. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234, 107 So. 175 (1925) and 27 Fla.Jur.2d., Fraud and Deceit § 39 (1981).
Accordingly, we reverse this cause and remand for further proceedings in connection with Counts III, IV, V, and VI consistent with this opinion.
REVERSE AND REMAND.
DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur. . See Lawyers, Title Guaranty Fund v. Milgo Electronics, 318 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So. 2d 602 (Fla.1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Palafrugell Holdings, Inc. v. Marwin S. Cassel, 825 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…the breach is intentional, the breach is intentional; when the conduct underlying the breach is negligent, the breach is negligent. See Allerton v. State Dept. of Insurance, 635 So. 2d 36, 39 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Daniel v. Coastal Bonded Title Co., 539 So. 2d 567, 568-69 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). . A claim for breach of fiduciary duty, coupled with a claim for legal malpractice, does [*940] nol necessarily combine to form one claim for legal malpractice. Rather, a complaint containing each of these claims can be…
-
Horizons Rehab., Inc. v. Health Care & Ret. Corp., 810 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…t one may file a claim for breach of fiduciary duty as either a negligent or an intentional tort. See Palafrugell Holdings, Inc. v. Cassel, 26 F.L.W. D201, — So. 2d -, 2001 WL 20824 (Fla. 3d DCA January 10, 2001); Daniel v. Coastal Bonded Title Co., 539 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Tunner v. Foss, 655 So. 2d 1151, 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In this case, the breach of fiduciary claims were pled unspecified but the allegations were insufficient to rise…
-
Askew v. Allstate Title & Abstract Co., Inc., 603 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…we need not reach appellant’s argument that appellee had a fiduciary duty to appellant to disclose the later scheduled closing. While a title insurance company’s duty is generally said to be to the buyer (Bjellos; Daniel v. Coastal Bonded Title Co., 539 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Sudberry v. Lowke, 403 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)), we see no reason that this must always be the case. The reason the duty is generally to the buyer is that the buyer would, of course, as the new owner, be more interested…
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
- Dale v. Jennings, 90 Fla. 234 (Fla. 1925)
- Connelly v. The Special Rd. & Bridge Dist. No. 5, 99 Fla. 456 (Fla. 1930)
- Edward L. Nezelek, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 413 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Lawyers Title Guar. Fund v. Milgo Elecs., 318 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Sudberry v. Lowke, 403 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)