Gonzalez v. Patane

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gonzalez v. Patane

234 So. 2d 8, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1970

DocketNo. 69-767

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 234 So. 2d 8 (Gonzalez v. Patane) 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

Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So. 2d 8, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff-appellants were the contract purchasers in a deposit receipt contract. They refused to complete the purchase upon the ground that the real estate broker had misrepresented the amount of yearly taxes assessed against the property. They brought the instant suit against the sellers and the broker seeking rescission of the contract and return of their deposit. After discovery the trial court entered summary judgment for the appellee owners and the appellee broker. We affirm.

The facts as presented to the trial court were that appellants prior to the signing of the contract made an inquiry of the broker as to the amount of the taxes on the property. He submitted an estimate showing the taxes to be between $650 and $680 per year. The proposed closing statement presented to appellants showed the taxes as $981.01. Appellants made no inquiry of the owners nor did they check the records or ask to see a tax receipt. The affidavits and discovery on file demonstrate that there was no fraud or deceit. The appellants failed to use even the slightest diligence to determine the amount of the taxes when the information was readily available. We therefore hold that the trial court correctly entered a summary judgment for the ap-pellees. See Greenberg v. Berger, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 609.

Affirmed.

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

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff-appellants were the contract purchasers in a deposit receipt contract. They refused to complete the purchase upon the ground that the real estate broker had misrepresented the amount of yearly taxes assessed against the property. They brought the instant suit against the sellers and the broker seeking rescission of the contract and return of their deposit. After discovery the trial court entered summary judgment for the appellee owners and the appellee broker. We affirm.

The facts as presented to the trial court were that appellants prior to the signing of the contract made an inquiry of the broker as to the amount of the taxes on the property. He submitted an estimate showing the taxes to be between $650 and $680 per year. The proposed closing statement presented to appellants showed the taxes as $981.01. Appellants made no inquiry of the owners nor did they check the records or ask to see a tax receipt. The affidavits and discovery on file demonstrate that there was no fraud or deceit. The appellants failed to use even the slightest diligence to determine the amount of the taxes when the information was readily available. We therefore hold that the trial court correctly entered a summary judgment for the ap-pellees. See Greenberg v. Berger, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 609.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 So. 2d 8, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-patane-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack