CATH-ART PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES A. BORNMAN AND BERTHA BORNMAN, 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.
Cath-Art Products Company sought to rescind its purchase of a motel from the Bornmans, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation regarding gross rental income. The trial court found the plaintiff failed to prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, and the appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence supported the trial judge's credibility determinations.
The appellate court held that the trial court's judgment was supported by competent substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The determination of credibility and preponderance of evidence was properly within the trial judge's province as the trier of fact.
[1] A party seeking to rescind a sale based on fraudulent misrepresentation must prove their allegations by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.
[2] The trier of fact has the sole province to determine the preponderance of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses when presented with conflicting evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is disclosed in the record that the trial judge was aware of the recent decision of the Supreme Court holding that only a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is required to establish fraud.”
Establishes the applicable legal standard for proving fraud that governed the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 15, 1970, Cath-Art purchased a motel from Charles and Bertha Bornman. The sellers represented that the motel's gross rental income for the pr…
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 Rescission Of Sale cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal is by the plaintiff below from an adverse judgment entered on final hearing in an action to rescind a sale of a motel. On April 15, 1970, the appellant purchased the motel from the appellees. On December 29, 1970, appellant sued to rescind the sale, alleging it was induced by *886a fraudulent representation of the sellers as to the amount of the gross rental income therefrom for the year preceding the sale. The trial court held the plaintiff failed to prove the allegations of the complaint.
The appellant contends that holding was against the weight of the evidence. It is disclosed in the record that the trial judge was aware of the recent decision of the Supreme Court holding that only a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence is required to establish fraud. Rigot v. Bucci, Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 51. Therefore, it is to be assumed that the trial judge determined and held that plaintiff’s allegations of fraud were not proved by the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.
The sellers had represented that the gross rental income of the motel for the prior year was a certain amount. Upon operation of the motel by the purchaser the income production rate was approximately one fourth lower. The plaintiff relied on corroborative evidence from which it could be inferred the rental income during the year prior to the sale was substantially the same as the income production rate experienced by the plaintiff in its operation subsequent to the sale. That was by reference to rental sales tax records for the prior year, and the record of bank deposits of the sellers covering that period. The sellers countered with testimony that rentals received in cash in an amount sufficient to make up the difference were not deposited, but were held out and used by them for their personal expenses and living costs. In corroboration thereof the sellers pointed out that the bank records showed absence of withdrawals for their personal needs, and that they had not possessed other resources from which to defray their personal and living expenses during the period involved.
On that and other conflicting evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, it was the province of the trier of the facts, upon judging the credibility of the witnesses and weight of the evidence, to determine its preponderance for the one party or the other. The record does not support the contention of the appellant that the judgment was against the weight of the evidence, or that the decision of the trial court was not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pinzl v. Lapointe, 426 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…REVERSED AND REMANDED. DAUKSCH, J., and BROWNLEE, JACKSON 0., Associate Judge, concur. . See, e.g., Regnvall v. Sayle, 45 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1950); Butts v. Dragstrem, 349 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Cath-Art Products Co., Inc. v. Bornman, 260 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Warner v. Harris Miami Beach, Inc., 219 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).…
Authorities Cited
- Rigot v. Bucci, 245 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1971)