Basnett v. Besett, 78-1503
| Decision Date | 06 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1503,78-1503 |
| Citation | 371 So.2d 705 |
| Parties | Robert K. BASNETT and Barbara L. Basnett, Appellants, v. Merle E. BESETT, Irene D. Besett and C. Joe Czerwinski, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael R. Karp of Wood, Whitesell & Karp, Sarasota, for appellants.
Leo Wotitzky of Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Johnson, Mandell & Batsel, Punta Gorda, for appellee Czerwinski.
Charles J. Cheves of Cheves & Rapkin, Venice, for appellees Besett.
After purchasing a fishing lodge for $300,000, appellants brought this suit against the sellers and the real estate agent who handled the transaction (appellees) asking in count one of their complaint for damages based on fraud and misrepresentation, and in count two for reformation of the contract of sale and abatement of the purchase price because of a mutual mistake of fact concerning the size of the property purchased. The trial judge dismissed both counts with prejudice. We reverse.
In count one, appellants alleged that appellees falsely represented certain facts concerning the property, most notably that the size of the property was 51/2 acres when in fact its size was 1.44 acres. Appellants alleged that these misrepresentations were knowingly made in order to induce appellants to make the purchase and that appellants relied upon them. However, appellants did not allege that they made efforts to investigate the facts as represented, nor did they allege any circumstances excusing or explaining their failure to investigate.
Appellees argue that appellants' count one allegations fail to state a cause of action because they reveal that appellants could have learned the truth by the exercise of ordinary care. Appellees point out, for example, the listing of the property described it as 16 specific lots plus 1/3 acre of submerged land, gave book and page number, and advised "see plat." Had appellants simply consulted the recorded plat and calculated the total square feet of the lots, appellees observe, they could readily have ascertained that the size of the property was much less than the 51/2 acres it was represented to be.
We reject appellees' argument on the authority of our recent decision in Upledger v. Vilanor, Incorporated, 369 So.2d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). In that case we held that when a specific false statement is knowingly made and reasonably relied upon, the representee is not precluded from recovery simply because he failed to make an independent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold v. Perry, 84-80
...thorough investigation. The Supreme Court heard Besett because the Second District Court of Appeal's decision in Basnett v. Besett, 371 So.2d 705 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), was in conflict with the above mentioned Potakar v. Hurtak, 82 So.2d 502 (Fla.1955). The Supreme Court upheld the decision of ......
-
Besett v. Basnett
...appellees in the district court and the defendants in the trial court, seek review of the district court's decision in Basnett v. Besett, 371 So.2d 705 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). In this case, the district court found that a fraudulent misrepresentation complaint stated a cause of action even thoug......