James v. Naumann

District Court of Appeal of Florida

James v. Naumann

464 So. 2d 1260, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 486, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12546

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 20, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1638

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 1260 (James v. Naumann) 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

James v. Naumann, 464 So. 2d 1260, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 486, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12546 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Our examination of the record in this matter reveals the following language within the Sales Agreement, not brought to our attention by the parties, which we deem conclusive of the claim that the defendants/appellees fraudulently represented that the real property in question would produce a substantial yield and increase in value in future years:

17. It is agreed that through the instrumentality of Naumann & Associates, Inc., the Purchaser became interested in said property but that Purchaser’s decision to buy was based on his inspection and investigation of the property and not on any statement or representation of said company and it’s associates; and shall not be liable or responsible for failure or default of their principal in carrying out the terms and conditions of this agreement.

We recognize that exculpatory language in an agreement often may not serve as a shield against an intentional tort, Mankap Enterprises, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services, 427 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), but we find no compelling authority upon which to sustain the view that the expression of an expectancy of financial return equates with a fraudulent or tortious purpose when ultimately the expectancy is not fulfilled. The vagaries of a dynamic economy, especially as they are known to affect real property in Florida, simply will not permit the formulation of a principle that a fraudulent representation will be deemed to have occurred at the moment when the real estate transaction was consummated because of a later decline in property value. Neither Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980), nor our decision in Foxfire Inn of Stuart, Fla. v. Neff, 433 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), requires that result.

The trial court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.

RYDER, C.J., and OTT and FRANK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Our examination of the record in this matter reveals the following language within the Sales Agreement, not brought to our attention by the parties, which we deem conclusive of the claim that the defendants/appellees fraudulently represented that the real property in question would produce a substantial yield and increase in value in future years:

17. It is agreed that through the instrumentality of Naumann & Associates, Inc., the Purchaser became interested in said property but that Purchaser’s decision to buy was based on his inspection and investigation of the property and not on any statement or representation of said company and it’s associates; and shall not be liable or responsible for failure or default of their principal in carrying out the terms and conditions of this agreement.

We recognize that exculpatory language in an agreement often may not serve as a shield against an intentional tort, Mankap Enterprises, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Alarm Services, 427 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), but we find no compelling authority upon which to sustain the view that the expression of an expectancy of financial return equates with a fraudulent or tortious purpose when ultimately the expectancy is not fulfilled. The vagaries of a dynamic economy, especially as they are known to affect real property in Florida, simply will not permit the formulation of a principle that a fraudulent representation will be deemed to have occurred at the moment when the real estate transaction was consummated because of a later decline in property value. Neither Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980), nor our decision in Foxfire Inn of Stuart, Fla. v. Neff, 433 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), requires that result.

The trial court’s judgments are AFFIRMED.

RYDER, C.J., and OTT and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 1260, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 486, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-naumann-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack