Greenberg v. BIG CYPRESS REALTY, INC.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Greenberg v. BIG CYPRESS REALTY, INC.

15 So. 3d 900, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10740, 2009 WL 2382309

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 2009

Docket4D08-304

StatusPublished

This text of 15 So. 3d 900 (Greenberg v. BIG CYPRESS REALTY, 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

Greenberg v. BIG CYPRESS REALTY, INC., 15 So. 3d 900, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10740, 2009 WL 2382309 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, appellants sued a number of entities and individuals over a condominium purchase transaction. Two counts involved appellees as real estate brokers or agents of the seller. These counts attempted to state a claim for fraudulent concealment under Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985). The “duty of disclosure announced in Johnson v. Davis extends to a seller’s real estate broker.” Syvrud v. Today Real Estate, Inc., 858 So.2d 1125, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Revitz v. Terrell, 572 So.2d 996, 998 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Also, Johnson’s application is “limited to non-commercial real property transactions.” Solorzano v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 896 So.2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The operative complaint states the elements of a Johnson claim, except it does not explicitly say that this was a non-commercial transaction. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this case for failure to state a cause of action against appellees. On remand, appellant shall be given leave to file an amended complaint.

GROSS, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, appellants sued a number of entities and individuals over a condominium purchase transaction. Two counts involved appellees as real estate brokers or agents of the seller. These counts attempted to state a claim for fraudulent concealment under Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985). The “duty of disclosure announced in Johnson v. Davis extends to a seller’s real estate broker.” Syvrud v. Today Real Estate, Inc., 858 So.2d 1125, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Revitz v. Terrell, 572 So.2d 996, 998 n. 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Also, Johnson’s application is “limited to non-commercial real property transactions.” Solorzano v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 896 So.2d 847, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The operative complaint states the elements of a Johnson claim, except it does not explicitly say that this was a non-commercial transaction. We reverse the trial court’s dismissal of this case for failure to state a cause of action against appellees. On remand, appellant shall be given leave to file an amended complaint.

GROSS, C.J., DAMOORGIAN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 So. 3d 900, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 10740, 2009 WL 2382309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-big-cypress-realty-inc-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack