D. I. AMES, AND EMILY L. AMES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANTHONY KOVACEK, AND BESSIE KOVACEK, 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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decree granting rescission of a land sale. The court found that the land sold was not as represented by the seller, leading to the buyer's claim for relief.
The court held that the chancellor correctly granted rescission, affirming the lower court's decision based on precedent.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Describes the misrepresentation made by the seller regarding the land's location.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees purchased land from appellants, which was represented as facing a water body and a hard-surfaced road. After the sale, it was discovered tha…
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 Rescission cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The appellees, complainants below, purchased of appellants, defendants below, a certain tract of land in Bradford County, Florida, said lands being pointed out by appellant, D. I. Ames, to appellee, Bessie Kovacek, and represented as facing on the water and on a hard surfaced road. Some months after the deed was delivered to appellees and the consideration paid it developed that the land described therein were not the lands pointed out by D. I. Ames to Bessie Kovacek, but were in fact different and much less valuable lands. The Kovaceks’ then brought their bill for rescission and return of the consideration paid. On final hearing the chancellor entered his decree granting the relief prayed for. Appeal is-taken from that decree.
We have examined the record and find that the questions raised in this case are analogous to those raised in Langley v. Irons Land & Development Co. 94 Fla. 1010, 114 So. R. 769, so the decree of the chancellor is affirmed on authority of that ease. See also Cosmopolitan Land Co. v. Drane, 121 So. R. 575.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.