SAMUEL ST. CLAIR AND RACHEL ST. CLAIR, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE CITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF ST. PETERSBURG, ETC., AND J. M. TURNPAW, 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.
Homebuyers appealed a summary foreclosure judgment, claiming fraud because they received a quitclaim deed instead of the warranty deed promised. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the defendants failed to plead sufficient facts supporting fraud and that accepting a quitclaim deed constitutes conclusive presumption of agreement to accept title subject to all risks.
The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the defendants failed to plead ultimate facts supporting fraud—they merely alleged that fraud occurred without specific factual support. Additionally, one accepting a quitclaim deed is conclusively presumed to have agreed to take title subject to all risks.
“in pleading fraud the pleader must state ultimate facts and not conclusions”
Establishes the pleading standard for fraud allegations in Florida, which the defendants failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe St. Clairs purchased real estate, receiving a warranty deed for part of the property and a quitclaim deed for the remainder. The vendor accepted a…
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 Pleading Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendants take an appeal from a summary decree of foreclosure.
The record reveals that the defendants purchased some real estate, receiving a *792warranty deed for part of the property and a quitclaim deed for the remainder. The vendor accepted a purchase money mortgage and assigned it to the plaintiff-bank, which brought these foreclosure proceedings when payments were in default. The defendants contend that the lower court erred by summarily ruling against their defense of fraud, which, they argue, raises material questions of fact.
The plaintiff-bank filed an affidavit in which the attorney who represented the vendor stated that at the time the transaction was consummated it was discovered that a fifteen foot strip on one side of the property was not insurable, and that the defendants were advised of this and agreed to accept a quitclaim deed for this strip. The defendants have not submitted any evidence showing that there was fraud or that the circumstances were any different from what the above affidavit stated them to be.
It is well settled in Florida that in pleading fraud the pleader must state ultimate facts and not conclusions. See McClinton v. Chapin, 1907, 54 Fla. 510, 45 So. 35, and numerous other cases cited in 14 Fla.Jur., § 64.
In the present case the defendants state that there was fraud because the parties had a contract which provided that a warranty deed would be given for the entire piece of property. This contract is attached to the pleadings and is not signed by the vendor as is required by Fla.Stat., § 725.01, F.S.A. Moreover, it is the general rule that preliminary agreements and understandings concerning the sale of realty merge in the deed. Volunteer Security Co., Inc. v. Dowl, 1947, 159 Fla. 767, 33 So.2d 150.
The defendants have pleaded no facts which would support their naked allegation of fraud. In the absence of fraud, mistake, or other ground for equitable relief, one who accepts a quitclaim deed is conclusively presumed to have agreed to take the title subject to all risks as to defects or incumbrances. Zimmerman v. Hill, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 432; and Pierson v. Bill, 1938, 133 Fla. 81, 182 So. 631.
The chancellor did not err in entering the summary judgment
Affirmed.
ALLEN, Acting C. J., and SEBRING, HAROLD L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Uwanawich v. Gaudini, 334 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…addition, it is held that a closing of a real estate deal merges all of the prior agreements concerning the sale into the new contract between the parties. See the general rule in St. Clair v. City Bank & Trust Co. of St. Petersburg, Fla. App.1965, 175 So. 2d 791. We must, therefore, decline to hold that the trial judge was required to grant the counterclaim for reformation of the mortgage. The third question is whether the court erred in the amount of an attorney’s fee and the procedure employed for its de…
-
Am. Nat'l Self Storage, Inc. v. Lopez-Aguiar, 521 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ained in the contract does not apply....” Milu, Inc. v. Duke, 204 So. 2d 81, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967). See Peterson v. Peterson, 431 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Stephan v. Brown, 233 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); St. Clair v. City Bank & Trust Co., 175 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). It is said that “[i]n such case, the delivery of the conveyance is merely a part performance of the contract, which remains binding as to its further provisions.” Gabel v. Simmons, 100 Fla. 526, 529, 129 So. 777, 778 (1930); Grah…1 / 2
-
Stephan v. Brown, 233 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…Florida, except under special circumstances not present here. See White v. Crandall, 1932, 105 Fla. 70, 143 So. 871; Volunteer Sec. Co. v. Dowl, 1948, 159 Fla. 767, 33 So. 2d 150; St. Clair v. City Bank & Trust Co. of St. Petersburg, Fla. App.1965, 175 So. 2d 791. In addition to the foregoing, the rule is well settled that, in the transfer of realty belonging to a decedent’s estate an executor or personal representative has no power in his representative capacity to give a warranty or covenant of title, incl…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McClinton v. Chapin, 54 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1907)
- Volunteer Sec. Co., Inc. v. Dowl, 159 Fla. 767 (Fla. 1947)
- Pierson v. Bill, 133 Fla. 81 (Fla. 1938)
- Zimmerman v. Hill, 100 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)