LUIS A. GONZALEZ AND MARIA A. GONZALEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANGELO M. PATANE AND JEANETTE PATANE, HIS WIFE, AND LUIS DEEB, D/B/A LUIS DEEB REALTY, 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.
Affirmed summary judgment for sellers and broker where contract purchasers failed to rescind based on alleged tax misrepresentation, as purchasers had readily available means to verify taxes but exercised no diligence.
A buyer cannot rescind a real estate contract based on a broker's tax estimate when the buyer failed to exercise reasonable diligence to verify the actual tax amount despite having readily available means to do so.
[1] A buyer seeking rescission of a real estate contract based on a broker's misrepresentation of property taxes must exercise reasonable diligence to verify readily availabl…
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“The affidavits and discovery on file demonstrate that there was no fraud or deceit. The appellants failed to use even the slightest diligence to determine the amount of the taxes when the information was readily available.”
Court's explanation for affirming summary judgment against the buyers
Buyers entered into a deposit receipt contract to purchase property after the broker estimated yearly taxes at $650-$680. The closing statement later …
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 Diligence cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff-appellants were the contract purchasers in a deposit receipt contract. They refused to complete the purchase upon the ground that the real estate broker had misrepresented the amount of yearly taxes assessed against the property. They brought the instant suit against the sellers and the broker seeking rescission of the contract and return of their deposit. After discovery the trial court entered summary judgment for the appellee owners and the appellee broker. We affirm.
The facts as presented to the trial court were that appellants prior to the signing of the contract made an inquiry of the broker as to the amount of the taxes on the property. He submitted an estimate showing the taxes to be between $650 and $680 per year. The proposed closing statement presented to appellants showed the taxes as $981.01. Appellants made no inquiry of the owners nor did they check the records or ask to see a tax receipt. The affidavits and discovery on file demonstrate that there was no fraud or deceit. The appellants failed to use even the slightest diligence to determine the amount of the taxes when the information was readily available. We therefore hold that the trial court correctly entered a summary judgment for the ap-pellees. See Greenberg v. Berger, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 609.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ion.” Be-sett, 389 So. 2d at 997 (quoting from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 541 (1976)). See also Greenberg v. Berger, 46 So. 2d at 610 (no grounds for misrepresentation; purchaser has duty to investigate truth of statements); Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (no cause of action for misrepresentation; purchasers failed to exercise diligence to discover readily available information). Wasser was a sophisticated buyer who had a full and fair opportunity to inspect and formulate his own…
-
Jairo Addison v. Carballosa, 48 So. 3d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…justified in relying upon a misrepresentation which is obviously false, and ‘which would be patent to him if he had utilized his opportunity to make a cursory examination or investigation’ ”) (quoting Besett, 389 So. 2d at 997); Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So. 2d 8, 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) (finding no cause of action for misrepresentation where the purchasers failed to exercise diligence to discover readily available information). Specifically addressing the record in the instant case, Addison alleges in his Com…
-
Pinzl v. Lapointe, 426 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…JACKSON 0., Associate Judge, concur. . See, e.g., Regnvall v. Sayle, 45 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1950); Butts v. Dragstrem, 349 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Cath-Art Products Co., Inc. v. Bornman, 260 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Warner v. Harris Miami Beach, Inc., 219 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Greenberg v. Berger, 46 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1950)