Scherer v. Kamelhair

665 So. 2d 1147, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 99, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 156
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 10, 1996·No. No. 95-0673·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court entered a partial summary judgment based on a written release the appellant and the appellees had executed several years prior to the institution of these proceedings. The appellant claimed that the release was invalid for a number of reasons. We find that there are still issues of material fact concerning whether there was both a lack of consideration and a failure of consideration for the release based upon the collapse of the overall settlement agreement which gave rise to the release. See Finkelstein v. Stockhauser, 546 So.2d 808 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Further, there is also a material issue of fact as to whether the release was ineffective because it was fraudulently induced. See Henson v. James M. Barker Co., 555 So.2d 901 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 564 So.2d 487 (Fla.1990). Appellee Kamelhair argues that he had no duty to disclose the matters of which the appellant now complains, because the parties were in an adverse relationship at the time of the execution of the release. However, that too is a disputed question of fact.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

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

Scherer v. Kamelhair, 665 So. 2d 1147, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 99, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 156 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

665 So. 2d 1147 (Scherer v. Kamelhair) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Henson v. James M. Barker Co., Inc.
555 So. 2d 901 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)