Sims v. Sullivan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sims v. Sullivan

619 So. 2d 474, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6242, 1993 WL 196307

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 11, 1993

DocketNo. 92-1217

StatusPublished

This text of 619 So. 2d 474 (Sims v. Sullivan) 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

Sims v. Sullivan, 619 So. 2d 474, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6242, 1993 WL 196307 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment as to the specific performance count in appellant’s complaint against appellee. We reverse the summary judgment as to Count II. While Count II is somewhat inartfully titled “Fraudulent Breach of Contract,” we find that the com[475]*475plaint, read in the light most favorable to appellant, states a cause of action for fraud, and not merely for breach of contract. Appellee’s motion for summary judgment dealt only with a purported contractual limitation of remedies available to appellant in the event of a breach of contract. The motion did not squarely address appellant’s allegation that he was fraudulently induced to enter into a transaction with appellee in the first place. Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment did not effectively reach appellant’s allegations of fraud. Material issues of fact remain as to whether appel-lee made misrepresentations of fact and, if so, whether, and to what extent, appellant relied thereon.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ALLEN, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment as to the specific performance count in appellant’s complaint against appellee. We reverse the summary judgment as to Count II. While Count II is somewhat inartfully titled “Fraudulent Breach of Contract,” we find that the com[475]*475plaint, read in the light most favorable to appellant, states a cause of action for fraud, and not merely for breach of contract. Appellee’s motion for summary judgment dealt only with a purported contractual limitation of remedies available to appellant in the event of a breach of contract. The motion did not squarely address appellant’s allegation that he was fraudulently induced to enter into a transaction with appellee in the first place. Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting summary judgment did not effectively reach appellant’s allegations of fraud. Material issues of fact remain as to whether appel-lee made misrepresentations of fact and, if so, whether, and to what extent, appellant relied thereon.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ALLEN, WOLF and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 474, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6242, 1993 WL 196307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sims-v-sullivan-fladistctapp-1993.