RENE MANTILLA
v.
RAUL HERNANDEZ FABIAN
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.
A release does not bar fraud in the inducement claims unless the release explicitly and specifically negates the right to bring such claims.
[1] A contract provision does not preclude rescission on the basis of fraud in the inducement unless the provision explicitly states that fraud is not a ground for rescission…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[O]ur supreme court has spoken clearly that no contract provision can preclude rescission on the basis of fraud in the inducement unless the contract provision explicitly states that fraud is not a ground for rescission.”
Court discussing governing principle from Lower Fees, Inc. v. Bankrate, Inc.
Mantilla and Fabian jointly owned a business. Mantilla sold his fifty percent interest to Fabian and later sued alleging fraud in the inducement of th…
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 General Release cases and more on FLexlaw
Thomas Regnier of Tom Regnier Appeals, P.A., Sunrise, for appellee Raul Hernandez Fabian.
PER CURIAM.
Rene Mantilla appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of Raul Hernandez Fabian. Mantilla and Fabian jointly owned a business, and Mantilla eventually sold his fifty percent interest to Fabian. Mantilla later sued Fabian and other defendants alleging fraud in the inducement of the sale documents, among other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment based on a release executed at the time of the sale. We reverse.
“[O]ur supreme court has spoken clearly that no contract provision can preclude rescission on the basis of fraud in the inducement unless the contract provision explicitly states that fraud is not a ground for rescission.” Lower Fees, Inc. v. Bankrate, Inc., 74 So. 3d 517, 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 4 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 1941)). Because the release at issue does not “specifically and explicitly negate[] the right to bring” a fraudulent inducement claim, we reverse and
2
remand for further proceedings. See id. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (25 total)
-
Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co., 761 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2000)…dissenting)). The nurseries further contend that Florida public policy disallows the enforcement of contracts where parties have contracted against liability for their own fraud or other intentional torts. See Oceanic Villas v. Godson, 148 Fla. 454, 4 So. 2d 689 (1941); Mankap Enter., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 427 So. 2d 332, 333-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“The law is settled that a party cannot contract against liability for his own fraud in order to exempt him from liability for an intentional toi’t,…
-
Jackson v. The Shakespeare Found., Inc., 108 So. 3d 587 (Fla. 2013)…his argument is viable will require reference to, and the construction of, the contract and all other facts. See, e.g., D & M Jupiter Inc. v. Friedopfer, 853 So. 2d 485, 488-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Oceanic Villas Inc. v. Godson, 148 Fla. 454, 4 So. 2d 689, 690 (1941)) (concluding that although a claim for fraudulent inducement of a contract may vitiate an “as is” provision, such a determination requires an examination of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its execution, and a resolution o…
-
Mankap Enters., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., 427 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…4] is settled that a party cannot contract against liability for his own fraud in order to exempt him from liability for an intentional tort, and any such exculpatory clauses are void as against public policy. Oceanic Villas v. Godson, 148 Fla. 454, 4 So. 2d 689 (1941); Zuckerman-Vernon Corp. v. Rosen, 361 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Fuentes v. Owen, 310 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Because there are material issues of fact on the issue of misrepresentation, summary judgment was inappropriate. Affir…
Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 148 Fla. 454 (Fla. 1941)
- Lower Fees, Inc. v. Bankrate, Inc., 74 So. 3d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)