Stephenson v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stephenson v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.

640 So. 2d 200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7636, 1994 WL 397516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 3, 1994

DocketNo. 93-1926

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 200 (Stephenson v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc.) 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

Stephenson v. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc., 640 So. 2d 200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7636, 1994 WL 397516 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Patrick and Deborah Stephenson (the Ste-phensons) appeal the trial court’s order dismissing their amended third party complaint against Frank Grillo (Grillo) with prejudice. The Stephensons’ amended third party complaint consisted of three counts sounding in fraud (Count I), negligent misrepresentation (Count II), and indemnification (Count III). The allegations contained in Counts I and II are sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. See C & J Sapp Publishing Co. v. Tandy Corp., 585 So.2d 290, 292 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (fraud); Atlantic National Bank of Florida v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328, 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (negligent misrepresentation). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on Counts I and II. However, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Count III because the Stephensons failed to state a cause of action for indemnification. See Atlantic National Bank of Florida v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328, 1331 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

In Count III of the amended third party complaint, the Stephensons alleged that Gril-lo’s wrongful acts of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a home they purchased from Grillo’s employer, Citicorp, subjected Grillo to liability for indemnification. However, Citicorp was injured by the Ste-phensons’ nonpayment of the mortgage and not by Grillo’s alleged breach of duty toward the Stephensons. Accordingly, these allegations do not satisfy the Vest element requiring the plaintiff’s injury to be a result of the indemnitor’s breach of duty to the indemni-tee. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Count III.

Accordingly, we reverse Counts I and II and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on Count III.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Patrick and Deborah Stephenson (the Ste-phensons) appeal the trial court’s order dismissing their amended third party complaint against Frank Grillo (Grillo) with prejudice. The Stephensons’ amended third party complaint consisted of three counts sounding in fraud (Count I), negligent misrepresentation (Count II), and indemnification (Count III). The allegations contained in Counts I and II are sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. See C & J Sapp Publishing Co. v. Tandy Corp., 585 So.2d 290, 292 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991) (fraud); Atlantic National Bank of Florida v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328, 1331 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (negligent misrepresentation). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings on Counts I and II. However, we affirm the trial court’s order dismissing Count III because the Stephensons failed to state a cause of action for indemnification. See Atlantic National Bank of Florida v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328, 1331 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).

In Count III of the amended third party complaint, the Stephensons alleged that Gril-lo’s wrongful acts of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a home they purchased from Grillo’s employer, Citicorp, subjected Grillo to liability for indemnification. However, Citicorp was injured by the Ste-phensons’ nonpayment of the mortgage and not by Grillo’s alleged breach of duty toward the Stephensons. Accordingly, these allegations do not satisfy the Vest element requiring the plaintiff’s injury to be a result of the indemnitor’s breach of duty to the indemni-tee. Therefore, the trial court properly dismissed Count III.

Accordingly, we reverse Counts I and II and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court’s judgment on Count III.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

DELL, C.J., and GUNTHER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 200, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 7636, 1994 WL 397516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephenson-v-citicorp-mortgage-inc-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack