Harmanoglu v. Rogel

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harmanoglu v. Rogel

587 So. 2d 634, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10143, 1991 WL 205833

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1991

DocketNo. 91-512

StatusPublished

This text of 587 So. 2d 634 (Harmanoglu v. Rogel) 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

Harmanoglu v. Rogel, 587 So. 2d 634, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10143, 1991 WL 205833 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

When the sellers in a land sale contract sought foreclosure against the buyers, the buyers responded with a countersuit seeking rescission. The buyers claimed, inter alia, that the sellers and their agents misrepresented the land’s buildability, that the buyers relied on those misrepresentations and suffered detriment. Summary judgment was entered for the defendants, and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The buyers’ claim fails because the record shows an utter lack of evidence that the buyers suffered any detriment, i.e. that they could not build on the land they bought. There is no evidence that the buyers sought to obtain building permits and were denied such permits, nor is there any evidence that a zoning change was necessary and that such change was sought and denied. See National Aircraft Servs. v. Aeroserv Int’l, 544 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“there can be no claim for fraudulent misrepresentation because, no legally cognizable damage was sustained”); Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Black, 546 So.2d 732, (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (same).

Finding no merit in other issues raised, we affirm the order granting final summary judgment.

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

PER CURIAM.

When the sellers in a land sale contract sought foreclosure against the buyers, the buyers responded with a countersuit seeking rescission. The buyers claimed, inter alia, that the sellers and their agents misrepresented the land’s buildability, that the buyers relied on those misrepresentations and suffered detriment. Summary judgment was entered for the defendants, and this appeal followed. We affirm.

The buyers’ claim fails because the record shows an utter lack of evidence that the buyers suffered any detriment, i.e. that they could not build on the land they bought. There is no evidence that the buyers sought to obtain building permits and were denied such permits, nor is there any evidence that a zoning change was necessary and that such change was sought and denied. See National Aircraft Servs. v. Aeroserv Int’l, 544 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“there can be no claim for fraudulent misrepresentation because, no legally cognizable damage was sustained”); Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Black, 546 So.2d 732, (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (same).

Finding no merit in other issues raised, we affirm the order granting final summary judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 So. 2d 634, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 10143, 1991 WL 205833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmanoglu-v-rogel-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack