C. L. BARRETT AND ROSALIE M. BARRETT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALCIDE J. QUESNEL AND DIANA A. QUESNEL, SOMETIMES KNOWN AS DIANA J. QUESNEL, HIS WIFE, 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 held that the chancellor was authorized to find that the plaintiffs failed to prove fraud, as the hotel's income records were available for inspection.
Plaintiffs sued defendants, alleging they were induced to purchase a hotel by a false representation about its gross income. The trial testimony was c…
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 Fraudulent Misrepresentation cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Justice.
Plaintiffs here appeal from a final decree of the circuit court, entered at the conclusion of all the evidence, holding that the equities were with the defendants and dismissing the case.
Appellants .had alleged in their complaint that they had been induced to purchase a hotel from the defendants by a false representation as to the gross income of the hotel. These allegations were denied in the answer filed by the defendants, and when the case was tried the testimony of the parties resulted in a sharp conflict of fact, which the chancellor resolved in favor of the defendants.
Appellants contend that the testimony upon which final decree is based is essentially incredible, but we have reviewed it and we cannot agree. Defendant-appellee Quesnel, who was one of the sellers and the alleged defrauding party, testified unequivocally not only that he made no representations as to the income of the hotel during the year 1953 (the critical period), but also that during the time the plaintiffs-appellants were interested in purchasing the hotel, and before the contract was signed, the records of the hotel were available for examination.
It is fundamental that fraud is never presumed and that the burden of proof is upon the party who asserts it, Biscayne Blvd. Properties, Inc., v. Graham, Fla., 65 So. 2d 858. The chancellor was authorized to find upon this record that plaintiffs-appellants failed to fulfill their duty of informing themselves of the true facts regarding the gross income of the hotel from records which were available for their in spection. Greenberg v. Berger, Fla., 46 So. 2d 609. And see also Potaker v. Hurtale, Fla., 82 So. 2d 502.
Affirmed.
DREW, C. J., THORNAL, J., and GILLIS, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Welbourn v. Cohen, 104 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)…ous or later proved to be inaccurate. ⅜ * * ” The rule is that frauds and misrepresentations, insofar as rescission is concerned, are never presumed and must be established by clear and convincing proof. In the case of Barrett v. Quesnel, Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 706, Mr. Justice Hobson said: “(2, 3) It is fundamental that fraud is never presumed and that the burden of proof is upon the party who asserts it, Biscayne Boulevard Properties, Inc., v. Graham, Fla., 65 So. 2d 858. The chancellor was authorized to fi…
-
Tonkovich v. S. Fla. Citrus Indus., Inc., 185 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…or fraud reached the appellate court after the trial judge or chancellor had found that, on the basis of the evidence presented, there was no proof of the alleged fraud. Welbourn v. Cohen, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 380; Barrett v. Quesnel, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 706; Brown v. Coward, Fla. 1953, 69 So. 2d 174; Regnvall v. Sayle, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 147; and Camardella v. Courtright, 1936, 126 Fla. 536, 171 So. 225. We have also examined the case of Hall v. Duvall, 1945, 156 Fla. 542, 24 So. 2d 106, a decision ba…
-
Nagel v. Cronebaugh, 782 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…s. Peirce’s mortgage. An essential element in any claim of fraudulent misrepresentation is competent, substantial evidence that a false statement concerning a material fact was made. Fraud is not presumed but must be proved. See Barrett v. Quesnel, 90 So. 2d 706 (Fla.1956). While the Crone-baughs did tell Mrs. Peirce that “Chuck (Cronebaugh) [was] running scared on finances” and that it was “hell to be cash poor,” we do not find that these statements were either proven to be false or, if false, were materia…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Potakar v. Hurtak, 82 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1955)
- Biscayne Boulevard Props., Inc. v. Graham, 65 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1953)
- Greenberg v. Berger, 46 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1950)