Fraudulent Inducement

1,994 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Yusem v. Butler
  966 So. 2d 405· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-08-15 ·cited 4×
  This appeal and cross-appeal arise from approximately twenty years of complex litigation over a failed commercial real estate partnership venture. The trial court entered a final judgment addressing various claims, and the appellate court affirms the trial court's decisions on th
• Jerue v. Holladay
  945 So. 2d 589· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-12-15 ·cited 4×
  Jerue challenges a trial court's dismissal of his breach of contract and related claims against an interior designer. The court erred by dismissing with prejudice when Jerue's counsel was absent due to excusable secretarial error, and because Jerue had a meritorious defense regar
• S. Waste Sys., LLC v. J & A Transfer, Inc.
  879 So. 2d 86· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• Urs Koechli v. BIP Int'l, Inc.
  861 So. 2d 501· Fla. 1st DCA· 2003-12-08 ·cited 4×
  Service of process was properly perfected under the Hague Convention despite technical defects, as the defendant received sufficient notice.
• Wallack v. Worldwide Mach. Sales, Inc.
  278 F. Supp. 2d 1358· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the plaintiffs' allegations of misrepresentation via telephone communications into Florida may satisfy the state's long-arm statute, they do not establish sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy federal due process requirements for personal jurisdiction.
• Tompkins v. First Union Nat'l Bank
  833 So. 2d 199· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-12-13 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case for failure to prosecute, as the plaintiff's efforts to serve other defendants did not constitute good cause to excuse the lack of record activity.
• Solomon v. Well Care HMO, Inc.
  822 So. 2d 543· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-07-24 ·cited 4×
  The Solomons sued their HMO, Well Care, for breach of contract, fraud, and other claims arising from Well Care's withdrawal of authorization for Gladys Solomon's hysterectomy surgery after initially approving it. The trial court dismissed the complaint as medical malpractice requ
• Hinton v. Brooks
  820 So. 2d 325· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-11-16 ·cited 4×
  Fraud in the inducement is not barred by the economic loss rule and constitutes a valid affirmative defense in a mortgage foreclosure action.
• Time Int'l, S.A., Inc. v. Safilo U.S.A., Inc.
  802 So. 2d 382· Fla. 3d DCA· 2001-11-14 ·cited 4×
  Time International and Rubina de Mexico appeal from dismissal of their complaint as a sanction for discovery violations. The appellate court reversed, holding that dismissal was an abuse of discretion and that the fraud in the inducement claim is not barred by the economic loss r
• McLANE v. Musick
  792 So. 2d 702· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-08-31 ·cited 4×
  Howard McLane appeals a summary judgment denying all claims against the estate of Loretta Monroe, with whom he cohabited for years under an alleged mutual understanding that they would marry and execute wills in each other's favor. The court affirms the denial of claims for perso
• Wilson v. De Angelis
  156 F. Supp. 2d 1335· S.D. Fla.· 2001-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the economic loss rule bars claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation against U.S. Coin, but allows amendment for fraudulent inducement, and denies dismissal for RICO, unjust enrichment, and rescission claims against De Angelis and U.S. Coin.
• Weiss v. Courshon
  768 So. 2d 2· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-05-24 ·cited 4×
  Patricia Weiss and Thomas Pollak appealed a summary judgment dismissing their breach of fiduciary duty and accounting claims against the Courshons, former trustees of family trusts. The court affirmed, applying collateral estoppel based on a prior federal court judgment that had
• Attanasio v. Excel Dev. Corp.
  757 So. 2d 1253· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-10 ·cited 4×
  Homebuyers sued a real estate developer for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding property features, including easements, canal access, landscaping buffers, and sprinkler system water sources. The trial court dismissed the fraud claims under the Statute of Frauds,
• LEO v. MacLEOD
  752 So. 2d 627· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-12-29 ·cited 4×
  The Leos sold their home to MacLeod under a real estate contract with an attorneys' fees clause. The trial court rescinded the contract based on mutual mistake (the garage was too short for a full-sized car), but then awarded MacLeod $14,000 in attorneys' fees under the contract.
• Primeco Pers. Commc'ns v. Commonwealth Distribs., Inc.
  740 So. 2d 585· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-08-11 ·cited 4×
  PrimeCo appeals a trial court order that partially denied its motion to compel arbitration of all claims in a dispute with Commonwealth Distributors over a distributorship agreement. The court held that all five counts, including fraud, tortious interference, breach of contract,
• Sinatra v. Ikaros Aviation, Inc.
  723 So. 2d 358· Fla. 3d DCA· 1998-12-23 ·cited 4×
  Defendants appealed a default judgment entered as a sanction for discovery violations in a fraud in the inducement case involving airplane parts. The appellate court affirmed the judgment against shareholders Diane Sinatra and William Hanifin who willfully violated discovery orde
• Allen Damron Constr. Co. v. Mickens
  725 So. 2d 1174· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-12-18 ·cited 4×
  Damron Construction appeals a final judgment on the Mickens' counterclaim that ordered Damron to purchase a replacement residential lot for the Mickens and return their original property. The appellate court reverses because the relief granted was not supported by the pleadings o
• Najera v. Nationsbank Tr. Co., N.A.
  707 So. 2d 1153· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-02-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that issues of material fact existed regarding the appellants' reliance on fraudulent misrepresentations, precluding summary judgment.
• Pavel Sebor and Brian Phillipson v. Dieter J. Rief
  706 So. 2d 52· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-01-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the state court departed from the essential requirements of law by staying an earlier-filed state case pending resolution of a later-filed federal case, as prior precedent dictates against such stays under these circumstances.
• Dantzler Lumber & Exp. Co. v. Bullington Lumber Co., Inc.
  968 F. Supp. 1543· M.D. Fla.· 1997-06-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the economic loss rule barred the fraud claim because the alleged fraudulent packing was not independent of the breach of contract and the damages were not distinct.
• Linn-Well Dev. Corp. v. Preston & Farley, Inc.
  666 So. 2d 558· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-12-20 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed summary judgment for the real estate broker defendants, holding that the economic loss rule bars a fraud-in-the-inducement claim by commercial property buyers against the sellers' real estate agent, and certified the issue to the Florida Supreme Court.
• State v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp.
  664 So. 2d 332· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-12-14 ·cited 4×
  The State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a trial court order denying its motion to dissolve an alternative dispute resolution agreement with Electronic Data Systems Corporation. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdictio
• Conrad v. Conrad
  663 So. 2d 662· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-10-25 ·cited 4×
  Wendy Conrad appeals a contempt order finding her in willful civil contempt for refusing to submit her minor child to paternity blood-testing. The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses, holding that the underlying April 27, 1994 court order did not require the child to submit
• Robbat v. Robbat
  643 So. 2d 1153· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-10-05 ·cited 4×
  A Florida appellate court enforces a 1978 Massachusetts antenuptial agreement between divorcing spouses, holding that under Massachusetts law the agreement is fully enforceable without court-imposed limitations because it predates the prospective application date announced in the
• Graf v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  636 So. 2d 539· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-04-15 ·cited 4×
  Graf appealed a summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute arising from a car rental. The key issue was whether Graf agreed to a rollback of insurance coverage from $1,000,000 to the statutory minimum of $10,000 when he leased a car from Alamo Rent-a-Car. The appellate cou
• Monmohan Bhatla v. U.S. Cap. Corp.
  990 F.2d 780· 3d Cir.· 1993-04-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the purchasers' appeal in Bhatla lacked appellate jurisdiction due to a lack of finality, and affirmed the district court's judgments in Mellon Bank, finding no evidence that Mellon Bank participated in the alleged fraud.
• Frederic J. Raymond v. Mobil OIL Corp.
  983 F.2d 1528· 10th Cir.· 1993-01-20 ·cited 4×
  Former employees who have received a lump-sum payment of all their vested benefits lack standing to sue under ERISA, even if they were allegedly fraudulently induced to retire.
• Indep. Fire Ins. Co. v. LEA
  979 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1992-12-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in levying Rule 11 sanctions against Randall Lea and Elizabeth Lemoine Lea, but affirmed sanctions against Robert W. Lea, Jr. and the denial of Independent Fire's fraud claim.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Payne
  973 F.2d 403· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine bars Payne's fraudulent inducement defense, but the federal holder in due course doctrine does not apply to non-negotiable guaranties, allowing Payne to assert defenses regarding notice of collateral sale and commercial reasonablene
• Superbird Farms v. Perdue Farms
  970 F.2d 238· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding the contract ambiguous, allowing extrinsic evidence, and instructing the jury on breach of contract, nor did it err in its handling of the damage award.
• First Sec. Bank OF Beaver v. Taylor
  964 F.2d 1053· 10th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bank waived its arguments regarding the oral agreement's uncertainty and the Statute of Frauds by failing to properly raise them in its motion for a directed verdict, and that the borrowers' claims for additional jury instructions were not supported by law
• Rosas v. The United States Small Bus. Admin.
  964 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-21 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that appellants failed to present evidence of fraud, duress, or breach of contract, and that estoppel claims against the government are restricted.
• Finz v. Schlesinger
  957 F.2d 78· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 4×
  A waiver of ERISA pension benefits is valid if made knowingly and voluntarily, even if the plan administrator failed to provide plan documents, provided the individual understood they might be entitled to benefits and received consideration for the waiver.
• Dano Mago v. Shearson Lehman Hutton Inc.
  956 F.2d 932· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Title VII claims are subject to arbitration under a privately negotiated agreement, and the district court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration.
• Saverio D. Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.
  949 F.2d 33· 2d Cir.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 4×
  The appeal is dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction because the district court's order did not terminate the action as to all parties or claims without Rule 54(b) certification.
• Smith v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
  943 F.2d 764· 7th Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 4×
  A state-law fraudulent inducement claim brought by unionized employees is preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act if its resolution is substantially dependent on the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nichkol Melanson v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  931 F.2d 558· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-24 ·cited 4×
  State law tort claims arising from employment disputes in the airline industry are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) if they are minor disputes, meaning they concern the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement.
• Nw. Racquet Swim & Health Clubs, Inc. v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for Midwest Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n & Midwest Sav. Ass'n
  927 F.2d 355· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-28 ·cited 4×
  A subordinated debt holder who invests in an institution that uses the investment for regulatory capital cannot rescind the purchase after the institution is declared insolvent, as this would prejudice innocent depositors and general creditors.
• Tolbert Dean Spradlin v. Lear Siegler Mgmt. Servs. Co., Inc.
  926 F.2d 865· 9th Cir.· 1991-02-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a forum selection clause in an employment contract is enforceable absent a clear showing of unreasonableness, fraud, or overreaching, and that the denial of oral argument was harmless error when no prejudice was demonstrated.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Commodore Sav. Ass'n v. Cribbs
  918 F.2d 557· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Rule 54(b) certification was not improvidently granted, and that CFB, as an assignee of failed S&L assets, possessed holder in due course status and was protected by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine, rendering Cribbs' defenses ineffectual.
• City OF Richmond v. Madison Mgmt. Grp., Inc.
  918 F.2d 438· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statute of repose did not bar the fraud claim, and the economic loss rule did not preclude recovery for fraud, as sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of knowing misrepresentation.
• Howard v. Said Haddad
  916 F.2d 167· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's fraud claims were direct, not derivative, and that the FDIC did not have absolute priority over the defendants' assets.
• Smith v. Barrett
  564 So. 2d 582· Fla. 4th DCA· 1990-07-25 ·cited 4×
  The trial court erred in denying appellants' motion for leave to amend their answer to assert affirmative defenses.
• Jolley v. Welch
  904 F.2d 988· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on jury instructions, evidence exclusion, directed verdicts, arbitration, severance, damages, and prescriptive periods.
• Koch v. Koch
  903 F.2d 1333· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for specific performance of the real estate and coin contract, nor did it abuse its discretion in setting the appraised values.
• Vanguard Telecomms., Inc. v. S. NEW England Tel. Co.
  900 F.2d 645· 3d Cir.· 1990-03-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the brokerage contract did not grant Vanguard a right to commission on sales it did not cause, and that Vanguard failed to establish it was the efficient cause of the sales in question or that a fiduciary duty was breached.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Kratz
  898 F.2d 669· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in its corporate capacity, is entitled to enforce a personal guaranty against a debtor, even when the debtor raises the defense of fraudulent inducement, due to the protections afforded by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e).
• W. Fireproofing Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co.
  896 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1990-02-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that evidence of oral misrepresentations is admissible to prove fraud in the inducement of a contract, even if it contradicts the written terms, and that a flawed jury instruction on punitive damages requires a new trial unless the plaintiff accepts a remittitur of
• Harvard Farms, Inc. v. Nat'l Cas. Co.
  555 So. 2d 1278· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-01-02 ·cited 4×
  Harvard Farms sought recovery under an animal insurance policy for a stolen purebred Arabian horse. The insurer denied coverage based on an exclusionary clause for mysterious disappearance, but the appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the exclusionary claus
• Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.
  867 F.2d 809· 4th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the arbitration clause in the agreement was not broad enough to encompass a claim of fraud in the inducement of the agreement itself.