Cordon v. La Grande Properties, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cordon v. La Grande Properties, Inc.

802 So. 2d 419, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17102, 2001 WL 1539061

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 5, 2001

DocketNo. 3D01-319

StatusPublished

This text of 802 So. 2d 419 (Cordon v. La Grande Properties, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cordon v. La Grande Properties, Inc., 802 So. 2d 419, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17102, 2001 WL 1539061 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff buyer appeals from a final order dismissing a complaint for the return of her deposit in a failed real estate transaction. The apparent basis of the ruling was that the plaintiff had not given timely written notice of cancellation as the terms of the agreement arguably required.

We reverse as to the seller-deposit holder, La Grande Properties, Inc., because the complaint — perhaps unnecessarily— contained adequate allegations that the requirement in question had been waived by the actions of the seller. See Torres v. K-Site 500 Assocs., 632 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); American Somax Ventures v. Touma, 547 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA [420]*4201989).¹ The case is remanded for appropriate determination of the claim against La Grande on the merits.

As to the individual defendant, Raul Vera, the principal of La Grande, however, we agree that no allegation sufficient to pierce the corporate veil has been, or could be made. See Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, the judgment in his favor is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff buyer appeals from a final order dismissing a complaint for the return of her deposit in a failed real estate transaction. The apparent basis of the ruling was that the plaintiff had not given timely written notice of cancellation as the terms of the agreement arguably required.

We reverse as to the seller-deposit holder, La Grande Properties, Inc., because the complaint — perhaps unnecessarily— contained adequate allegations that the requirement in question had been waived by the actions of the seller. See Torres v. K-Site 500 Assocs., 632 So.2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); American Somax Ventures v. Touma, 547 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA [420]*4201989).¹ The case is remanded for appropriate determination of the claim against La Grande on the merits.

As to the individual defendant, Raul Vera, the principal of La Grande, however, we agree that no allegation sufficient to pierce the corporate veil has been, or could be made. See Dania Jai-Alai Palace, Inc. v. Sykes, 450 So.2d 1114 (Fla.1984). Accordingly, the judgment in his favor is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

802 So. 2d 419, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 17102, 2001 WL 1539061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordon-v-la-grande-properties-inc-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack