WILLIAM F. B. QUEENAN AND DEBORAH ANN QUEENAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL FLYNN AND CAROLINE FLYNN, 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.
In this appeal from summary judgment, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal of the Queenans' fraudulent misrepresentation claim against the Flynns regarding the sale of a house. The court held that where a seller actively conceals defects in a way that prevents reasonable inspection, the seller cannot rely on the purchaser's duty to inspect, and the Queenans' sworn allegations of concealment regarding flooring conditions created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that where a vendor actively deceives or conceals evidence of a defective condition in a way that renders it incapable of detection through reasonable and ordinary inspection, the vendor cannot rely upon the purchaser's duty to inspect. The Queenans' sworn assertions that the Flynns intentionally concealed and made false representations about the flooring condition were sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
[1] A seller may be liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding property conditions even if the buyer had the opportunity to inspect, if the seller's actual deception o…
[2] A purchaser is generally not entitled to rely on a seller's representations about property condition when the means and opportunity to inspect are equally available to bo…
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“In essence, then, where a vendor by his actual deception, artifice, or misconduct conceals the evidence of a defective condition in such a way as to render it incapable of detection from a reasonable and ordinary inspection of the house, the vendor can no longer rely upon the purchaser's duty to inspect because such conduct by the vendor serves to impair the purchaser's opportunity to make a meaningful inspection.”
Establishes the exception to the duty-to-inspect rule when seller actively conceals defects
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Queenans purchased a house from the Flynns. After taking possession, they discovered numerous defective conditions in the supports, flooring, wall…
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 Duty To Inspect cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment denying a claim by the appellants, William F. B. Queenan and Deborah Ann Queenan, for damages resulting from alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made by the appellees, Michael Flynn and Caroline Flynn, in connection with the sale and purchase of a house. We reverse.
The Queenans purchased a house from the Flynns. After taking possession, the Queenans allegedly discovered numerous defective conditions in the supports, flooring, walls, and roof. They claimed that the Flynns intentionally misrepresented these conditions before the sale, and as a result the Queenans were prevented from detecting the defects.
The record reveals that the condition of the house was in dispute prior to the sale and that there were numerous inspections by the Queenans and their representatives. Based on this record and the case of Davis v. Dunn, 58 So. 2d 539 (Fla.1952), the trial court granted the Flynns a summary judgment. In Davis, supra, the Supreme Court held that a purchaser is not entitled to rely on the representations of the seller where the means and opportunity to inspect the premises are equally available to both parties. In a later decision the First District recognized a necessary corollary to the Davis rule:
In essence, then, where a vendor by his actual deception, artifice, or misconduct conceals the evidence of a defective condition in such a way as to render it incapable of detection from a reasonable and ordinary inspection of the house, the vendor can no longer rely upon the purchaser’s duty to inspect because such conduct by the vendor serves to impair the purchaser’s opportunity to make a meaningful inspection.1
Here, the Queenans claim actual deception on the part of the Flynns and have made such claim under oath. The record shows little support for their claims reference the roof, walls, and supports. However, we cannot ignore their sworn assertions that Mr. Flynn intentionally concealed and made false representations about the condition of the floors to prevent an inspection thereof. Some of the floors had wall to wall carpeting. The Queenans claim they were told that all of the floors were hardwood and in good condition. After occupying the house and taking up the carpeting some floors were found to be concrete and in bad condition. We believe these sworn assertions are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Accordingly, the final summary judgment is hereby reversed for further proceedings consistent herewith.
MAGER, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur. . Beagle v. Bagwell, 215 So. 2d 24, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robert and Anna Perks v. Adolfo Kaplun, 407 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…fraud in the sale of a house. I agree that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was proper because there is no evidence of any fraudulent conduct on the part of the sellers, here the Kapluns, unlike the situation present in Queenan v. Flynn, 347 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. Dunn, 58 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1952)
- Beagle v. Bagwell, 215 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)