RNK FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXANDER-MITCHELL ASSOCIATES, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, A.G. RAPPAPORT, AND MITCHELL E. BENTLEY, 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.
RNK Family Limited Partnership appealed the dismissal of its complaint against a property seller for breach of warranty regarding non-disclosure of a substantial county wastewater connection fee. The court reversed the dismissal, holding that a warranty clause requiring disclosure of facts materially affecting property value creates a contractual exception to the caveat emptor doctrine, entitling the buyer to present evidence on damages.
The court held that the express warranty provision circumvents caveat emptor for disclosed facts affecting property value, and the buyer is entitled to present evidence as to whether the wastewater connection negatively affected the property's value. The court further held that the alleged assignment of the claim, even if it involves the same person, is not fatal to the complaint.
[1] A contractual warranty provision requiring disclosure of facts materially affecting property value, which are not readily observable or disclosed, circumvents the doctrin…
[2] A purchaser may present evidence to demonstrate whether a significant contemporary occurrence negatively affects the value of property, despite the general rule of caveat…
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“Seller warrants that there are no facts known to Seller materially affecting the value of the Real Property which are not readily observable by Buyer or which have not been disclosed to Buyer.”
The express warranty clause in the contract that the court found creates an exception to caveat emptor
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS & R, a Florida corporation, purchased an apartment complex from Alexander pursuant to a contract containing a warranty that the seller disclosed all…
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 Assignment Of Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
GREEN, Judge.
RNK Family Limited Partnership appeals the trial court’s order granting appellee, Alexander-Mitchell Associates’, mo tion to dismiss RNK’s complaint based on the doctrine of caveat emptor and an ineffectual assignment of a right to file suit. We reverse.
In this case, we deal solely with a warranty provision of a sale contract and the standard of review is de novo. See Management Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding that a decision interpreting a contract presents an issue of law that is reviewable by the de novo standard of review).
The essential facts are that S & R, a Florida corporation, purchased an apartment complex from Alexander, based on a contract that contained the following provision: “W. WARRANTIES: Seller warrants that there are no facts known to Seller materially affecting the value of the Real Property which are not readily observable by Buyer or which have not been disclosed to Buyer.” The complaint alleged that within eight months after closing S & R was notified by Hillsborough County that it was required to spend substantial sums ($93,334.62) for a county wastewater connection. The complaint further alleged that Alexander had knowledge about this matter several years before the contract was executed but failed to relay the information to S & R. RNK alleged in the complaint that S & R assigned its claim, which underlies the complaint, to RNK. RNK contends that this wastewater connection affects the value of the property to the extent of the imposed charge of $93,334.62.
We are not called upon to assess whether the county hookup negatively affected the value of the property. We do believe that a reasonable purchaser relying on the aforestated provision would anticipate that, at least as to property value, the doctrine of caveat emptor would have been circumvented. Accordingly, a purchaser should be entitled to present evidence as to whether such a significant contemporary occurrence would negatively affect the value of the property.
We agree with the trial court that caveat emptor is the current law in this state when generally dealing with the sale of commercial property. See Mostoufi v. Presto Food Stores, Inc., 618 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, RNK and Alexander contracted for disclosure related to value, and RNK pleaded a cause of action that should have been addressed by the finder of fact.
The trial court additionally dismissed the complaint because it found the assignment of the claim from S & R Office Real Estate, Inc. to RNK Family Limited Partnership was invalid or ineffectual, as the assignor and assignee are the same person. We cannot discern from the trial court’s order or the parties’ briefs why this arrangement, if true, should be fatal to the complaint. We make no decision with respect to the validity of the assignment but only conclude the allegation is not fatal to the complaint.
Reversed.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Syvrud v. Today Real Est., Inc., 858 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…s based upon the interpretation of the contract between the Buyers and the Sellers. The decision interpreting this contract presents an issue of law subject to review by the de novo standard. See RNK Family Ltd. P’ship v. Alexander-Mitchell Assocs., 788 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The Law In its leading decision in Johnson v. Davis, the Supreme Court of Florida declared: Accordingly, we hold that where the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not…
-
RNK Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Alexander-Mitchell Assocs., 890 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…rmed the purchaser that the mandatory order was in place. The trial court originally dismissed the complaint based in part on the theory of caveat emptor. This court issued an opinion in RNK Family Ltd. Partnership v. Alexander-Mitchell Associates, 788 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), in which we agreed that caveat emptor is the current law in this state when generally dealing with the sale of commercial property. However, we noted that RNK and Alexander-Mitchell had specifically contracted for disclosur…
-
Nunez v. Westfield Homes OF Fla., Inc., 925 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…p. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). The underlying dispute involves claims that a builder constructed homes that did not comply with applicable building codes. We review the trial court’s order de novo. See RNK Family Ltd. P’ship v. Alexander-Mitchell Assoc., 788 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Ocwen Fed. Bank FSB v. LVWD, Ltd., 766 So. 2d 248, 249 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Because the parties did not agree to arbitrate claims such as those presented here, we reverse. Julian and Ashley Nunez and Michael and Jean Ann Y…
Authorities Cited
- Mgmt. Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Mostoufi v. Presto Food Stores, Inc., 618 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)