MARIAN SCHMIDT AND DORIS SCHMIDT, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH FIRRIOLO AND STELLA FIRRIOLO, HIS WIFE, AND LANDMARK IV REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a fraud action brought by sellers in a real estate transaction, holding that fraud claims are not categorically barred in real estate sales despite the existence of a contract.
A seller in a real estate transaction may bring an action for fraud even where the parties have entered into a contract for sale, and such fraud claims are not categorically unavailable.
[1] A seller in a real estate transaction may maintain an action for fraud notwithstanding the existence of a contract for sale between the parties.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSellers Schmidt brought a fraud action against buyers Firriolo and Landmark IV Realty in connection with a real estate transaction. The trial court di…
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 Real Estate Transactions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
REVERSED. We agree with appellants that the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice appellants’ action for fraud. Without considering the legal sufficiency of appellants’ allegations, the trial court determined that no action for fraud was available to a seller in a real estate transaction where the parties had entered into a contract for sale. We disagree. An action for fraud may arise out of a variety of factual settings, including real estate transactions, and, if the claimant can successfully demonstrate fraud in the inducement, the transaction will be vitiated and damages awarded for fraud. Cf. Walker v. Galt, 171 F. 2d 613 (5th Cir.1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 925, 69 S.Ct. 656, 93 L.Ed. 1086 (1949). We reject the claim of appellees that the case of Frank Silvestri, Inc. v. Hilltop Developers, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), holds that no cause of action for fraud can arise out of a real estate transaction.
We do not pass on the sufficiency of the appellants’ allegations of fraud because that issue was not raised in the trial court. Our reversal is without prejudice to the rights of the parties to litigate that issue.
ANSTEAD and KLEIN, JJ., concur. OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Frank Silvestri, Inc. v. Hilltop Developers, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Walker v. Galt, 171 F.2d 613 (5th Cir. 1948)
- Walker v. Galt, 336 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1949)
- Atl. Freight Lines, Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 336 U.S. 925 (U.S. 1949)