Rubens v. Glinsky

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rubens v. Glinsky

473 So. 2d 20, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14439

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1677

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 473 So. 2d 20 (Rubens v. Glinsky) 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

Rubens v. Glinsky, 473 So. 2d 20, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14439 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of the Rubenses’ complaint with regard to their fraudulent misrepresentation count is reversed. The complaint, while not a model of craftsmanship, adequately alleges the elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation by alleging: (a) the misrepresentation of a material fact (the concealment of a negative roof inspection report and the presentation of a favorable one so as to represent that the roof was in good condition); (b) that the defendants knew the falsity of the representation; (c) that the defendants made the representation intending that the plaintiffs would rely on it in purchasing the house; (d) that the plaintiffs did rely on the representation in purchasing the house; and (e) that the plaintiffs reliance caused damage. See American International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla.1975); Johnson v. Davis, 449 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980). With regard to the other count in the complaint, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of the Rubenses’ complaint with regard to their fraudulent misrepresentation count is reversed. The complaint, while not a model of craftsmanship, adequately alleges the elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation by alleging: (a) the misrepresentation of a material fact (the concealment of a negative roof inspection report and the presentation of a favorable one so as to represent that the roof was in good condition); (b) that the defendants knew the falsity of the representation; (c) that the defendants made the representation intending that the plaintiffs would rely on it in purchasing the house; (d) that the plaintiffs did rely on the representation in purchasing the house; and (e) that the plaintiffs reliance caused damage. See American International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla.1975); Johnson v. Davis, 449 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980). With regard to the other count in the complaint, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 20, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1790, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubens-v-glinsky-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack