FRANCOISE WYNNE
v.
DEBORAH FRIEDMANN, ET AL.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2025-01-02
No. 2023-1552
2025 FL 69 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2025) Positive Treatment

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.

Synopsis

Francoise Wynne appealed a lower court decision in a FDUTPA (Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act) claim against Deborah Friedmann and others. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's dismissal, finding that the defendant's statements constituted non-actionable puffery rather than deceptive trade practices.

Holding

The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, holding that the defendant's statements constituted puffery—such as claims about purchase price being reasonable, units being worth more than charged, or units being desirable—which are not actionable under FDUTPA.

Key Quotes

“statements made by defendant, such as, the purchase price for the timeshare unit was reasonable, the units were worth more than what was being charged, and units were desirable, were 'nothing more than opinion or puffery'”

Establishes the standard for what constitutes non-actionable puffery in FDUTPA claims

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

The opinion does not provide detailed facts about the underlying dispute. Based on the legal citations, the case appears to involve representations ab…

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.

Topics
Puffery Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fdutpa) Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Puffery cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed January2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ Nos. 3D23-1343 and 3D23-1552 Lower Tribunal No. 20-20033 ________________ Francoise Wynne, Appellant, vs. Deborah Friedmann, et al., Appellees. Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge. Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, and Marshall Dore Louis, for appellant. Bernhard Law Firm PLLC, and Andrew J. Bernhard, for appellees. Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing FDUTPA claim with prejudice where

Footnotes
2 statements made by defendant, such as, the purchase price for the timeshare unit was reasonable, the units were worth more than what was being charged, and units were desirable, were “nothing more than opinion or puffery”); Fineman v. Ferragamo USA Inc., 672 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1311-13 (S.D. Fla. 2023) (holding that in a FDUTPA claim, “puffery” is not actionable); § 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“[D]amages, fees, or costs are not recoverable under this section against a retailer who has, in good faith, engaged in the dissemination of claims of a manufacturer or wholesaler without actual knowledge that it violated this part.”).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw