R. D. HERMES AND THERESA HERMES, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH ANTON, APPELLEE
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.
Plaintiffs leased property from defendant Anton under a one-year lease agreement, made repairs, and paid rent. They were subsequently forced to vacate after the State took ownership through condemnation. Plaintiffs sued for fraud in the inducement, alleging defendant knew the property had already been condemned when executing the lease, but the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant. The appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on a fraud claim.
Summary judgment was improper because fraud is not a proper subject for summary judgment and genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether defendant had title or notice of the date of taking. The trial court erred in refusing to admit certified copies of condemnation documents that would establish the date of the taking and whether it predated the lease execution.
[1] Fraud is generally not a proper subject for summary judgment due to its subtle nature requiring full factual explanation.
[2] A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding a lessor's knowledge of property condemnation at the time of lease execution.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Generally, the issue of fraud is not a proper subject of a summary judgment. Fraud is a subtle thing requiring a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to determine if they collectively constitute a fraud.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that fraud claims are unsuitable for summary disposition and require full factual development.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Anton owned real property subject to condemnation proceedings and advertised it for rent. Plaintiffs, relocating from Colorado to Miami, exe…
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 Actual Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellants appeal an adverse summary final judgment entered in favor of the defendant in this action to recover damages for fraud in the inducement.
Defendant-appellee Elizabeth Anton, the owner of certain real property which was the subject of a condemnation proceeding, advertized the property for rent. Plaintiff-appellants, who were moving to Miami from Colorado, entered into a written agreement to lease the property for a period of one year at a monthly rental of $400, and thereupon tendered to the defendant $400 as a security deposit. Prior thereto., defendant had informed appellants that the State was planning to condemn the property in a year or a year and a half to construct a highway. Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Hermes, moved into the premises and made extensive repairs. After having paid two months’ rent, they were informed by an agent for the State that they would have to vacate because the property now was owned by the State. Thereafter, despite defendant’s assurances to the contrary, plaintiffs were forced to vacate the premises and obtain new housing at additional expense. Defendant refused to return to plaintiff-appellants their security deposit. Plaintiff-appellants then filed their complaint to recover damages for fraud in the inducement and alleged therein that defendant at the time of the execution of the lease knew that the subject property already had been condemned by the State and therefore had misrepresented her ownership thereof. At the pre-trial conference the trial judge refused to consider plaintiffs’ proffer of certified copies of documents regarding the condemnation of the subject property by the State which demonstrated that the condemnation was substantially completed prior to the execution of the lease agreement. After reviewing the depositions of the plaintiff and finding that the plaintiffs had actual notice that the State intended to acquire the subject property, the trial judge entered summary final judgment for the defendant. Plaintiffs appeal therefrom and we reverse.
Generally, the issue of fraud is not a proper subject of a summary judgment. Fraud is a subtle thing requiring a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to determine if they collectively constitute a fraud. Automobile Sales, Inc. v. Federated Mutual Implement and Hardware Insurance Company, Fla.App. 1972, 256 So. 2d 386 and cases cited therein. After a careful examination of the record on appeal, we conclude that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether or not the defendant-appellee had title to or, at the very least, was put on notice of the date of the taking of the subject property at the time she entered into the lease with the plaintiff-appellants. Thus, we find that the trial court erred in refusing to admit appellants’ proffer of the certified copies of the documents regarding the condemnation of defendant’s property which included the date of the order of the taking which would have divested the appellee of legal title thereto. Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eligio Barrios & Goldstone Co., N.V. v. Duran, 496 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…rporation, 344 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). The issue of fraud generally should not be disposed of by summary judgment. Levey v. Getelman, 408 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Hermes v. Anton, 300 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Therefore for the reasons stated, the final summary judgment adverse to the appellants on the cross-claim and the counterclaim be and the same is hereby reversed and the matter returned to the trial court for further proceeding…
-
Rufus Palmer, M.D. v. Santa FE Healthcare Sys., Inc., 582 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…CA), cert. denied 341 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1976). Further, because fraud is “a subtle thing requiring a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong,” it will often not be a proper matter for summary judgment. See Hermes v. Anton, 300 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In the present case there is sufficient doubt and dispute regarding the material facts so as to preclude a summary judgment in favor of the appellees on appellant’s claim of fraud. The appealed orders are reversed as to the summ…
-
Bowman v. Barker, 172 So. 3d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…uiring a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong,’ it will often not be a proper matter for summary judgment.” Palmer v. Santa Fe Healthcare Sys., Inc., 582 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (quoting Hermes v. Anton, 300 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)). The record contains evidence creating an issue of fact with respect to Mr. Barker’s knowledge, and the element of his intent is likewise a triable issue. Finally, we also note that Appellant’s recent addition of new defenda…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., 256 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)