Klein v. Rothenberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Klein v. Rothenberg

305 So. 2d 78

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 26, 1974

DocketNo. 74-892

StatusPublished

This text of 305 So. 2d 78 (Klein v. Rothenberg) 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

Klein v. Rothenberg, 305 So. 2d 78 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the plaintiffs in an action claiming rescission of a contract of purchase and damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by the defendants as sellers to the plaintiffs as purchasers of an interest in a restaurant business. On this appeal from a summary final judgment for the defendants, the appellants present eighteen points but their main reliance is on the proposition that ordinarily fraud is not a proper subject of summary judgment. Bryant v. Small, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 150. As noted in the cited opinion, “This is not to say that there may not be unusual circumstances which will permit a summary judgment in a fraud or undue influence case, . . . ” Our review of this record convinces us that the summary judgment was properly entered in this case.

The pleadings, the depositions of the plaintiffs and the affidavits on file show conclusively that (1) as to the rescission action, the plaintiffs are equitably estopped to maintain the action and (2) as to the damage claim, no actionable fraud is alleged in the complaint or particularized in the depositions or affidavits.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were the plaintiffs in an action claiming rescission of a contract of purchase and damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by the defendants as sellers to the plaintiffs as purchasers of an interest in a restaurant business. On this appeal from a summary final judgment for the defendants, the appellants present eighteen points but their main reliance is on the proposition that ordinarily fraud is not a proper subject of summary judgment. Bryant v. Small, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 150. As noted in the cited opinion, “This is not to say that there may not be unusual circumstances which will permit a summary judgment in a fraud or undue influence case, . . . ” Our review of this record convinces us that the summary judgment was properly entered in this case.

The pleadings, the depositions of the plaintiffs and the affidavits on file show conclusively that (1) as to the rescission action, the plaintiffs are equitably estopped to maintain the action and (2) as to the damage claim, no actionable fraud is alleged in the complaint or particularized in the depositions or affidavits.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 So. 2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klein-v-rothenberg-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack