OAKHILL HOMES, INC.
v.
STATE
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.
Oakhill Homes, a builder-seller, was convicted of 31 counts of deceptive trade practices for installing air-conditioners of lesser capacity than those in the model home shown to purchasers. The circuit court reversed all 31 convictions on two independent grounds: lack of criminal penalty for contracts predating the 1972 effective date of criminal penalties, and that the conduct involved future promises rather than misrepresentations of past or existing facts.
All 31 convictions are reversed. For contracts predating January 1, 1972, there was no criminal penalty provision applicable; criminal penalties only became effective on January 1, 1972. Additionally, under Youngker v. State, the conduct constituted false promises regarding future delivery of goods rather than misrepresentations of past or existing facts, which is insufficient to support a deceptive trade practices conviction.
[1] A promise to do something in the future, even if false, does not constitute a representation of a past or existing fact and will not support a conviction for false preten…
[2] A deceptive trade practice requires a false representation of a past or existing fact, not a future promise.
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“A fraudulent or false representation or pretense within the meaning of F.S. 1963, Section 811.021, F.S.A., is a false representation of a past or existing fact... A promise to do something in the future, even though it be a false promise, is not a representation of a past or existing fact and will not support a conviction for false pretenses.”
Establishes that deceptive trade practices require misrepresentation of past or existing facts, not future promises, per Youngker v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOakhill Homes showed prospective purchasers a model home with air-conditioners of a certain capacity. Purchasers signed contracts for homes, but the a…
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 Deceptive Trade Practices cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant-appellant was tried without a jury and convicted of 31 counts of deceptive trade practices, pursuant to . Florida Statute 817.771. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to pay a fine of $250 on each count.
The appellant, builder and seller of homes, showed a model to prospective purchasers. Prospective purchasers signed contracts for the homes. The air-conditioners were placed in the homes several months after the contracts were signed. They were of insufficient and lesser capacity than the air-conditioners in the model home. All of the contracts regarding the 31 counts were entered into prior to January 1, 1972, with the exception that the contracts regarding counts 26 and 38 were entered into subsequent to January 1, 1972.
Florida Statute 817.771 reads —
“Deceptive trade practices are hereby declared to be unlawful...”
Florida Statute 817.77(4) reads —
“Unfair or deceptive practice means any one of the following: . . . (g) representing that goods or services are óf a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model if they are of another . . . (Emphasis added.)
There are civil penalties for this offense provided in Florida Statute 817.82.
There were no criminal penalties for this offense prior to January 1, 1972. Prior to January 1, 1972, Florida Statute 817.771 read as follows —
“Deceptive trade practices are hereby declared to be unlawful...”
*5There was no mention in the statute or the chapter as to whether it be a felony or misdemeanor, and there was no penalty provision provided.
The 1971 legislature amended Florida Statute 817.771 to read as follows'—
“Deceptive trade practices are hereby declared to be unlawful and, are misdemeanors of the second degree. and are punishable under 775.082 or 775.083 ... (Emphasis added.)
This later amendment did not become effective until January !, 1972, pursuant to Laws of Florida, Chapter 71-136, §1183.
Therefore there was no penalty provision for all of the counts, with the exception of counts 26 and 38, for the reason that the contracts were entered into prior to January 1, 1972.
Further, as to all counts, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Youngker v. State, 215 So.2d 318, on page 323 stated as follows —
“A fraudulent or false representation or pretense within the meaning of F.S. 1963, Section 811.021, F.S.A., is a false representation of a past or existing fact. Green v. State, Fla. App. 1966, 190 So.2d 614, 616. A promise to do something in the future, even though it be a false promise, is not a representation of a past or existing fact and will not support a conviction for false pretenses. Such was the holding of the Florida Supreme Court in Scarlett v. State, 1889, 25 Fla. 717, 6 So.2d 767, under statutory F.S. 1963, Section 811.021, F.S.A., which describes the crime of false pretenses. This rule was reiterated in Morris v. State, 1907, 54 Fla. 80, 45 So. 456.” (Emphasis added.)
See also Colangelo v. State, 320 So.2d 826.
The judgments of guilt and sentences cannot stand because —
1. Youngker v. State is controlling as to all counts, and
2. There was no penalty provision as to all counts, except counts 26 and 28, as of the times of the alleged offenses......
Accordingly, the judgments of guilt and sentences .as to all 31 counts are reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Youngker v. State, 215 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)
- Giles Morris v. State, 54 Fla. 80 (Fla. 1907)
- Scarlett v. State, 25 Fla. 717 (Fla. 1889)
- Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Carter v. Pompano Beach Abstract Co., 190 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Cole v. State, 320 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)