Gaddis v. McComas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gaddis v. McComas

391 So. 2d 706, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17827

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1980

DocketNo. 79-2049

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 391 So. 2d 706 (Gaddis v. McComas) 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

Gaddis v. McComas, 391 So. 2d 706, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17827 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment requiring the appellant to return the deposit and consideration paid by the appellee for an option to purchase certain real property owned by the appellant. The basis of ap-pellee’s claim was that the appellant had fraudulently withheld material information about the property prior to execution of the option agreement and a renewal thereof. Upon review of the record we are of the view that the appellee simply failed to prove a cause of action of misrepresentation against the appellant. Unlike the recent case of Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980), the record here reflects no evidence of any fraudulent misrepresentations made by the appellant to the appellee.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with directions that judgment be entered in favor of appellant.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final judgment requiring the appellant to return the deposit and consideration paid by the appellee for an option to purchase certain real property owned by the appellant. The basis of ap-pellee’s claim was that the appellant had fraudulently withheld material information about the property prior to execution of the option agreement and a renewal thereof. Upon review of the record we are of the view that the appellee simply failed to prove a cause of action of misrepresentation against the appellant. Unlike the recent case of Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980), the record here reflects no evidence of any fraudulent misrepresentations made by the appellant to the appellee.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with directions that judgment be entered in favor of appellant.

ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 So. 2d 706, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaddis-v-mccomas-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack