Kline v. Fineberg

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kline v. Fineberg

426 So. 2d 1163, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 28985

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 8, 1983·No. No. 82-842·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Where a complaint alleged fraud based on intentional misrepresentation or in the making of statements calculated to induce “without any regard to their truth or falsehood,” affidavits filed by buyer, setting out circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that the seller knew or should have known the falsity of statements contained in a prospectus, were sufficient to preclude a summary judgment in favor of seller. See Tatman v. American Heritage Life Insurance Co., 215 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (conflict in inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence may raise genuine issues of material fact).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Where a complaint alleged fraud based on intentional misrepresentation or in the making of statements calculated to induce “without any regard to their truth or falsehood,” affidavits filed by buyer, setting out circumstances from which it could reasonably be inferred that the seller knew or should have known the falsity of statements contained in a prospectus, were sufficient to preclude a summary judgment in favor of seller. See Tatman v. American Heritage Life Insurance Co., 215 So.2d 11 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (conflict in inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence may raise genuine issues of material fact).

Reversed and remanded.

Kline v. Fineberg, 426 So. 2d 1163, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 28985 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

426 So. 2d 1163 (Kline v. Fineberg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related