INVERSIONES ALFA V, C.A.
v.
CEDROS MANAGEMENT INVESTMENTS LLC
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.
A trial court may rescind a property exchange agreement induced by fraud even when restoration to the status quo is impossible, if the court balances the equities and fashions an appropriate remedy that provides complete relief.
[1] In a fraudulent inducement case, a trial court may grant rescission as an equitable remedy notwithstanding the impossibility of restoring the parties to their pre-agreeme…
[2] The grant or denial of rescission as an equitable remedy is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The equitable remedy of rescission is not necessarily limited to situations where the parties can be restored to the status quo; that general rule is subject to exception where the inability of one party to restore is caused by the fraud perpetrated by the other party. In the event restoration to the status quo is impossible, rescission may be granted if the court can balance the equities and fashion an appropriate remedy that would do equity to both parties and afford complete relief.”
Cited from Henson v. James M. Barker Co., Inc., 555 So. 2d 901, 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), establishing the exception to the status quo requirement in rescission cases.
In 2018, Inversiones and Cedros executed a property exchange agreement to swap ownership of a Venezuelan tree farm (Inversiones's property) for a luxu…
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 Balancing Of Equities cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 15, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0218 Lower Tribunal No. 21-26751-CA-01
________________
Inversiones Alfa V, C.A.,
Appellant,
vs.
Cedros Management Investments, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., and Juan C. Zorrilla and Victor M. Velarde, for appellant. Rivero Mestre LLP, and Andres Rivero and Daniela Tenjido-Eljaiek, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant Inversiones Alfa V, C.A. (“Inversiones”), the defendant below, appeals a May 23, 2025 corrected final judgment in favor of appellee
Cedros Management Investments LLC (“Cedros”), the plaintiff below, that rescinds the parties’ property exchange agreement and awards Cedros the return of its condominium.
After a jury found that Inversiones had fraudulently induced Cedros to enter into a property exchange agreement,1 and awarded Cedros damages,
Cedros filed a notice below electing the equitable remedy of rescission.2 UMLIC
VP, L.L.C., 933 So. 2d 1206, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Rennolds v. Rennolds, 312 So. 2d 538, 542 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (“[A] court of conscience ought go no further than reasonably necessary to balance fully the equities flowing between the parties. Discretion in forming equitable decrees should be exercised toward adapting appropriate relief to the wrong suffered or as may be reasonably called for by the circumstances of the particular case.”). Here, the trial court concluded that restoring the parties to their pre-agreement status was impossible and, therefore, carefully balanced the equities between the parties.3 The trial court further concluded that the damages award would not provide full and complete relief to Cedros. 4 Based on these conclusions, the trial court rescinded the parties’ property exchange
agreement and awarded Cedros the return of its condominium property.
Finding no abuse of discretion in any aspect of the post-trial orders on
Cedros’s rescission election, we affirm the corrected final judgment.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)
- Henson v. James M. Barker Co., Inc., 555 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Rawson v. Umlic VP, L.L.C., 933 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Rennolds v. Rennolds, 312 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- O'Donnell v. Novak, 183 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)