Lewis v. Kranz

599 So. 2d 253, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6083, 1992 WL 109135
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 26, 1992·No. No. 91-1455·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is controlled by principles enunciated in Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), where we held that the issue of fraud is not ordinarily a proper subject for summary judgment because, being a subtle matter, proving the cause of action may require a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to permit a determination whether they collectively constitute fraud. It is not established conclusively in the record that the appellee Kranz, as an agent of the defrauding principal, was not a participant in a conspiracy to defraud. See Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 450 (Fla.1975).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Lewis v. Kranz, 599 So. 2d 253, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6083, 1992 WL 109135 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

599 So. 2d 253 (Lewis v. Kranz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc.
771 So. 2d 62 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Maunsell v. American General Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
707 So. 2d 916 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Chillemi v. Rorabeck
629 So. 2d 206 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)