JASON POSTREGNA, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
HANS TANNER, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 buyer contracted to purchase a luxury condominium for $3.575 million but refused to close after discovering undisclosed water damage and mold. The trial court found the seller violated his duty to disclose material defects and breached the good faith obligation in the sales contract, ordering return of the buyer's $350,000 deposit. On appeal, the court affirmed the return of the deposit but reversed and remanded the prejudgment interest calculation.
The seller violated his duty to disclose material defects that he knew affected the property's value and were not readily observable to the buyer, and breached his good faith obligation by refusing the buyer's reasonable request to delay closing. The trial court correctly ordered return of the escrow deposit, but erred in calculating prejudgment interest because the parties did not stipulate to the amount.
[1] A seller of a home has a duty to disclose material facts affecting the value of the property that are not readily observable and are unknown to the buyer.
[2] A seller's failure to disclose known material defects in a residence, which were not readily observable and unknown to the buyer, constitutes a violation of the seller's…
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“[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer; the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.”
Establishes the legal standard for seller disclosure obligations in Florida real estate transactions, citing Johnson v. Davis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJason Postregna contracted to sell his luxury condominium to Hans Tanner for $3,575,000. Tanner deposited $350,000 in escrow. The unit had sustained s…
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 Fraudulent Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This lawsuit began when undisclosed defects in a residence caused the buyer to refuse to complete the sale. Jason Pos-tregna contracted to sell his luxury condominium unit to Hans Tanner for $3,575,000. Pursuant to the contract for sale, Mr. Tanner deposited $350,000 in escrow. When problems with the condition of the unit came to light and the contract did not close, Mr. Tanner sued for return of his deposit. Following a nonjury trial, Mr. Postregna appeals the judgment in favor of Mr. Tanner. Mr. Tanner cross-appeals the trial court’s determination of prejudgment interest.
In its final judgment, the trial court resolved numerous factual disputes. Of paramount importance is the finding that the unit had sustained significant water damage and now suffers from mold and poor air quality. Mr. Postregna had not disclosed these conditions to Mr. Tanner before they signed the sales contract even though he had commenced a lawsuit against the builder and others based on these defects. The trial court found that these facts were material to the buyer’s decision to enter into the sales contract and that Mr. Postregna failed to disclose them, thus violating his duty as a seller. See Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 629 (Fla.1985) (“[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer; the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.”). The trial court also concluded that Mr. Postregna had breached his obligation of good faith under the sales contract when he refused Mr. Tanner’s reasonable request to delay the closing so that Mr. Tanner could arrange for further inspection. Thus, the trial court entered judgment for Mr. Tanner and ordered that the escrow deposit be returned to him.
This record reveals that there was substantial, competent evidence presented to support the final judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the primary appeal.
On the cross-appeal, the parties agree that the trial court erred in finding that the parties had stipulated to the amount of prejudgment interest to which the buyer was entitled when there was no such stipulation. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest and remand for recalculation of the amount. Any prejudgment interest awarded on remand should be reduced by the amount of interest earned by the escrow deposit.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
CASANUEVA, STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mullarkey v. Tiraco (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. Morton Davis and Edna Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985)