HERMAN ROSENWASSER, TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL H. FRAGER AND MARIAN FRAGER, HIS WIFE, ET AL., 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.
A Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision to permit the joinder of over 30 condominium unit owners as plaintiffs in a fraud and rescission action against the developer, rejecting the developer's argument that permitting multiple plaintiffs based on identical purchase agreements and representations constituted improper multifariousness.
The court held that the joinder of additional plaintiffs did not render the complaint multifarious because all plaintiffs shared a common interest in the subject matter and connection to the issues, having purchased units in the same condominium complex from the same developer under identical sales contracts with identical recreational lease provisions and having relied on the same sales brochure containing identical representations.
[1] A complaint is not multifarious when all plaintiffs share a common interest in the subject matter of the litigation and a connection with each other regarding the issues…
[2] Joinder of additional plaintiffs is permissible when each plaintiff has a common interest in the subject matter of the litigation, even if they entered into separate agre…
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, multifariousness occurs when distinct and disconnected subjects, matters, or causes are joined in the same complaint or when parties, either as defendants or plaintiffs, who have no common interest in the subject matter of the litigation or connection with each other insofar as the issues in the litigation are concerned join in the same litigation.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining when joinder of parties is improper due to multifariousness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1974, eight condominium unit owners filed a class action against developer Herman Rosenwasser alleging they were induced to purchase units in r…
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 Deceit cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
Defendant condominium developer seeks review of an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to join additional parties plaintiff in this action for damages and rescission of a condominium recreational lease on the grounds of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
In May 1974 eight condominium unit owners as a class action filed suit against Herman Rosenwasser, the developer of their condominium and the lessor of a 99 year recreational lease. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that they were induced to purchase their individual units in reliance on representations made in a written brochure depicting lakeside swimming, sandy beaches and courtesy bus service, none of which has been provided. The complaint further alleged that plaintiffs were induced to enter a 99 year lease of recreational facilities ; nevertheless, to date defendant developer had taken no steps to construct these facilities. Plaintiffs prayed for damages, compensatory and punitive, and rescission of the lease. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action in that the suit was not maintainable as a class action. The motion was denied and on appeal this court reversed the denial and remanded the cause to the trial court to proceed as an action by the named plaintiffs.1 Upon remand, plaintiffs filed a motion to join additional parties which was granted. Defendant appeals from the granting of this motion and argues that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the joinder of over 30 condominium unit owners as plaintiffs in a complaint based on fraud and deceit, when each unit owner entered into a separate and independent purchase agreement. We cannot agree.
Generally, multifariousness occurs when distinct and disconnected subjects, matters, or causes are joined in the same complaint or when parties, either as defendants or plaintiffs, who have no common interest in the subject matter of the litigation or connection with each other insofar as the issues in the litigation are concerned join in the same litigation. Carbonell v. American International Pictures, Inc., Fla.App.1975, 313 So. 2d 417.
The joinder of the additional plaintiffs in the case sub judice does not make the complaint multifarious. All plaintiffs are condominium unit owners in the condominium complex which was developed by the defendant Rosenwasser, and each entered into a sales contract which has the identical provision pertaining to the lease of the recreational facilities which they allege defendant has not provided. Likewise, with respect to the fraud and deceit count, the complaint states that all plaintiff unit owners, as an inducement to purchase their units, relied upon the representations made in copies of the same sales brochure shown to each of them. Thus, it cannot be said that plaintiffs in the case at bar have no common interest in the subject matter of the litigation or no connection with each other insofar as the issues in the litigation are concerned.
Affirmed.
. Rosenwasser v. Frager, Fla.App.1975, 307 So. 2d 865.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cassidy v. ICE Queen Int'l, Inc., 390 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…rmore, the claims of the several plaintiffs that, induced by the same allegedly false representation, each signed separate but identical franchise agreements with the defendant, were in fact properly joined in a single action. Rosenwasser v. Frager, 322 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Carbonell v. American International Pictures, Inc., 313 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). On appeal, the defendant claims that the complaint was properly dismissed on another ground, that of improper venue. We disagree. Since the v…
Authorities Cited
- Carbonell v. Am. Int'l Pictures, Inc., 313 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Rosenwasser v. Frager, 307 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)