Francoise Wynne v. Deborah Friedmann

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 2, 2025
• Docket: 3D2023-1343
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 2, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D23-1343 and 3D23-1552 Lower Tribunal No. 20-20033 ________________

Francoise Wynne, Appellant,

vs.

Deborah Friedmann, et al., Appellees.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gina Beovides, Judge.

Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP, and Marshall Dore Louis, for appellant.

Bernhard Law Firm PLLC, and Andrew J. Bernhard, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Perret v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., 889 F. Supp. 2d

1333, 1342 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (dismissing FDUTPA claim with prejudice where statements made by defendant, such as, the purchase price for the

timeshare unit was reasonable, the units were worth more than what was

being charged, and units were desirable, were “nothing more than opinion or

puffery”); Fineman v. Ferragamo USA Inc., 672 F. Supp. 3d 1302, 1311-13

(S.D. Fla. 2023) (holding that in a FDUTPA claim, “puffery” is not actionable);

§ 501.211(2), Fla. Stat. (2024) (“[D]amages, fees, or costs are not

recoverable under this section against a retailer who has, in good faith,

engaged in the dissemination of claims of a manufacturer or wholesaler

without actual knowledge that it violated this part.”).