PASSAAT, LTD., HARRY HEUER, AND LOU HEUER, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAY BETTIS, INDIVIDUALLY, WILLIAM SCRUGGS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND MICHAEL C. LETOURNEAU, INDIVIDUALLY, 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.
In a fraudulent misrepresentation action involving the sale of a yacht, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants but appeared to apply an incorrect standard of proof. The appellate court reversed, holding that fraud claims require only a preponderance of the evidence standard, not clear and convincing evidence, and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard.
The trial court applied an incorrect standard of proof by referencing both 'greater weight of evidence' and 'clear and convincing evidence,' when the proper standard for fraud actions is preponderance of the evidence. The case is reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.
[1] A fraud action requires proof by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.
[2] A trial court's application of an incorrect standard of proof in a fraud action may constitute a miscarriage of justice.
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“The standard of proof in a fraud action is a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the correct legal standard applicable to fraud claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePassaat, Ltd., Harry Heuer, and Lou Heuer brought an action against Jay Bettis, William Scruggs, and Michael C. Letourneau for fraudulent misrepresent…
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 Standard Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, Judge.
In entering final judgment in favor of appellees in this action for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a yacht, the trial court stated, “Plaintiffs have not proven by the greater weight of the evidence the requisites by clear and convincing evidence of fraud as being committed by the Defendants, all or any.” Later the court wrote, “Plaintiffs have failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence, ‘clear and convincing evidence’ as to the type of activities committed by named individual Defendants pursuant to the law cited as being applicable.... ” Because the trial court appears to have applied an incorrect standard of proof, we reverse.
The standard of proof in a fraud action is a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence. Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 475 So. 2d 227 (Fla.1985). It is unclear what standard the trial judge used in considering the evidence in this case, since the judgment refers both to “greater weight” and “clear and convincing” in the same sentence. “A party is entitled to have his case judged under a correct standard of proof; and it is conceivable to us that a ‘miscarriage of justice’ can occur when an incorrect standard is applied.” Powerhouse, Inc. v. Walton, 557 So .2d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). An examination of the record reveals that there was evidence going both ways on the issues.
Thus, there exists at least a “reasonable probability” of a different result if the correct standard were applied, although we do not suggest or imply that the result reached by the trial court could not have been reached with the application of the proper standard of proof. The appellees have made no response at all to this argument in their brief, thus failing to give us any ground upon which we could treat this as harmless error. On the related appeal from the order denying attorney’s fees, we affirm. The appellee’s request for attorney’s fees prior to trial relied only on section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (1991).
Thus, appellee is limited to that basis for recovery, as the trial court found. See Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991). This is clearly not a case having no justiciable issues of fact or law.
We therefore affirm the order denying attorney’s fees but reverse the final judgment and remand for a reconsideration of this case by the trial court applying the proper standard of proof.
GUNTHER, J., concurs.
HERSEY, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beal Bank v. Almand & Assocs., 780 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2001)…90, 494 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 475 So. 2d 227, 228 (Fla.1985) (holding that the burden of [*59] proof in a fraud action is preponderance or greater weight of the evidence), cited in Passaat, Ltd. v. Bettis, 654 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We find no reason to deviate from that standard here. We disapprove Terrace Bank v. Brady, 598 So. 2d 225, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), to the extent it imposes a higher burden of proof. .Section 90.304 provides that "in civil…
-
Martin Cnty. v. Section 28 P'ship, Ltd., 676 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…e proceeding to eliminate the possibility of legally inconsistent results. We vacate that part of the judgment awarding damages and injunctive relief for violation of substantive due process and remand for a new hearing. See Passaat, Ltd. v. Bettis, 654 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(a party is entitled to have his case judged under a correct standard of proof). By this opinion, we do not mean to suggest or imply that the result reached by the trial court could not have been reached with application of the pr…
Authorities Cited
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Wieczoreck v. H & H Builders, Inc., 475 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1985)
- Powerhouse, Inc. v. Walton, 557 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)