SAUNDRA K. LEWIS, AND KEVIN LEWIS, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, SAUNDRA K. LEWIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
SCOTT KRANZ, APPELLEE
SAUNDRA K. LEWIS, AND KEVIN LEWIS, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, SAUNDRA K. LEWIS, APPELLANTS,
SCOTT KRANZ, APPELLEE
599 So. 2d 253
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1992)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
This case is controlled by principles enunciated in Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), where we held that the issue of fraud is not ordinarily a proper subject for summary judgment because, being a subtle matter, proving the cause of action may require a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to permit a determination whether they collectively constitute fraud. It is not established conclusively in the record that the appellee Kranz, as an agent of the defrauding principal, was not a participant in a conspiracy to defraud. See Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So. 2d 450 (Fla.1975).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc., 771 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…lectively constitute fraud, and for that reason such determination is seldom one that can be made in a legally sufficient manner without a trial. Nessim v. De Loache, 384 So. 2d 1341, 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (citations omitted); see Lewis v. Kranz, 599 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Burton v. Linotype Co., 556 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In this case the trial court concluded that Soler had changed his testimony, but the surrounding circumstances support Soler’s assertion that he misunderstood the…
-
Chillemi v. Rorabeck, 629 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ere denied. Neither sellers nor their attorneys ever filed an amended answer, attacked the second amended complaint or filed counter-affidavits to the summary judgment. When fraud is alleged, ordinarily summary judgment is improper. Lewis v. Kranz, 599 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). However, in the present case, after the answers were stricken by court order, there was nothing in the record refuting the claims contained in the second amended complaint. Although a summary judgment should not be granted where…
-
Maunsell v. Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co., 707 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…ourse, be read favorably to plaintiff as the nonmoving party, see Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666, 668 (Fla.1985), and must be read with the admonition in mind that summary judgment is granted cautiously in cases involving fraud. See Lewis v. Kranz, 599 So. 2d 253, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Nonetheless, even read in that light, I see no fact or reasonable factual inference which would support the complaint’s bare assertion that, at the time the promises were made, the defendant did not intend to carry them out.…
Authorities Cited
- Salomon Kassin Nessim v. Mickey DeLOACHE, 384 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Swafford v. Marion Edwards Auto Paint Supply, Inc., 307 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1975)
- Bunce v. Equip. Fabricators, Inc., 307 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1975)