HENRY E. CONNELLY AND WIFE, FRANCES CONNELLY, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MR. AND MRS. WYNDELL MERRITT, 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.
The Florida appellate court partially reversed a trial court's dismissal of a fraud complaint, holding that allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation regarding property access and use state a valid cause of action against certain defendants, even though the Statute of Frauds does not bar such claims seeking monetary damages.
Counts I and II of the complaint state valid causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation against defendants Bertie and Addison because they seek money damages rather than enforcement of property rights, and the Statute of Frauds does not apply to oral misrepresentations resulting only in monetary damages. However, no valid cause of action is stated against defendants Merritt.
[1] A cause of action for damages resulting from false and fraudulent misrepresentations in inducing the purchase of real estate is stated when the representations concern pe…
[2] The Statute of Frauds does not bar claims for money damages arising from false oral representations made in the inducement of a real estate transaction.
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“The Statute of Frauds does not come into play against the false oral representations, resulting only in money damages. These two counts seek damages, not easements or other claims against the land.”
Establishes the critical distinction that claims for monetary damages from fraudulent misrepresentation are not barred by the Statute of Frauds, which applies only to agreements affecting land.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs alleged that defendants Bertie and Addison made false oral representations that plaintiffs would have perpetual access to Lake Newnan and t…
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 Oral Representations cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of Alachua County, Florida, (Eighth Judicial Circuit), dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice, as to all the defendants therein named, we find and so hold that said order was in part valid but in part in error. Our reasons are enumerated hereinbelow.
*8In the amended complaint, inter alia, it is alleged that the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bertie and defendant Addison, in Counts I and II made fraudulent misrepresentations to the plaintiffs which induced the plaintiffs to purchase real estate lots from said defendants, said fraudulent representations being that the plaintiffs would always have access to Lake Newnan, and that these defendants, who at that time, owned the lakefront lot described in the complaint, would keep said lot to be “perpetually reserved and maintained by the defendants for the exclusive use of the plaintiffs and all of the other property owners who took title through the defendants”. That the false representation induced, and in fact, caused the plaintiffs to purchase their lots and improve the same, which they would not have purchased without such false representations, and that as a result thereof, the plaintiffs have been damaged by virtue of the decreased value of their properties.
We are of the opinion that the first two counts of the amended complaint state a good cause of action against the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bertie and Mr. Addison, for damages resulting from the false and fraudulent misrepresentations. What the proof may show is not a question in this proceedings before us. The counts, however, do- not allege any cause of action against the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Mer-rit. The Statute of Frauds does not come into play against the false oral representations, resulting only in money damages. These two counts seek damages, not easements or other claims against the land. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint in all counts as to all defendants is reversed as to Counts I and II as the same applies to the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Bertie and John Addison, but the order is affirmed as to the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Merritt as to the whole complaint as well as to the other defendants as to Counts III and IV.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings not adverse to this opinion.
SPECTOR, C. J, and RAWLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W. B. D., Inc. v. Howard Johnson Co., 382 So. 2d 1323 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…t charged Howard Johnson with fraud and deceit for which money damages were sought. It is well established that the statute of frauds may not be used to sweep aside such claims when the same are based upon positive testimony. In Connelly v. Merritt, 273 So. 2d 7 (Fla.App. 1st 1973), the court considered a situation in which the plaintiffs contended that the defendants had made certain false representations based upon which the plaintiffs were persuaded to purchase real estate lots. Plaintiffs alleged that t…
-
Fearick v. The Smugglers Cove, Inc., 379 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…final judgment dismissing the complaint, it is irrelevant whether or not the appellant would have been able to present sufficient evidence to prevail on the merits. Elliott v. Hernando County, 281 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Connelly v. Merritt, 273 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Count I of appellant’s fourth amended complaint alleges facts which, if proven, will entitle him to his brokerage commission from Smugglers Cove, Inc. The parties had orally entered into an exclusive listing (agency to sell) ag…
-
Chaires v. N. Fla. Nat'l Bank, 432 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…s alleged to state a cause of action, and a court is not permitted to speculate as to whether a plaintiff has any prospect of proving the allegations. Raney v. Jimmie Diesel Corp., 362 So. 2d 997, 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); accord, Connelly v. Merritt, 273 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Count II purports to state a statutory cause of action for treble damages for theft pursuant to Section 812.035(7), Fla. Stats. Count III purports to state a cause of action for fraud and deceit. Contrary to the trial court’…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence