Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 June 1953 |
| Citation | 65 So.2d 849 |
| Parties | CANELL et al. v. ARCOLA HOUSING CORP. et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Martin Yelen, Miami, and Jay Burton Keys, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Charles F. Wells, Miami, for appellees.
The appeal in this case involves the sufficiency of an amended complaint filed by the appellants as plaintiffs below, against the appellees, as defendants below, to recover money damages for the alleged fraud and deceit of the defendants.
The amended complaint, which was dismissed by the court below, on motion of the defendants, contained, in substance, the following allegations:
The defendant, Duxtad, as salesman for the Arcola Housing Corporation, sold to each of the plaintiffs a separate lot of land specifically described in the amended complaint, the lots being located in Arcola Gardens, a subdivision in Dade County, Florida. During the negotiations leading up to the sale and purchase of the lots, the defendant Duxtad orally represented to each of the plaintiffs 'that there would be installed, provided, and constructed in the said subdivision, certain bathing beach facilities, such as sand beach on lake shore with landscaping as shown to the plaintiffs in an artist's sketch by defendant's agent * * * and that the proximity of such facilities to the various lots purchased by the several plaintiffs would greatly increase the value of the said lots and the plaintiffs, relying thereon, did pay for the said lots sums which were [2,000] in excess of the value of the said lots to each of the plaintiffs without such bathing facilities and close proximaties thereto. * * *
'That the plaintiffs and each of them would never have purchased the said lots at the prices paid except for the representations and promises made by said defendant * * * that bathing beach facilities would be available in the said subdivision and be contiguous to their property, said property being from across the street to one or two blocks away from the aforementioned beach.
'That the said representations were made by the said defendant * * * without any intention to perform thereunder and with the then present intention not to perform thereunder, and for the sole purpose of fraudulently * * * inducing the plaintiffs * * * to purchase the said lots at prices in excess of the value thereof, and at prices which plaintiffs * * * would not have paid therefor except in reliance upon said representations.
'That defendants have refused to make any written commitments regarding the said bathing beach facilities and have attempted to pacify the plaintiffs with oral promises, and the plaintiffs fear that the defendants have already sold or will sell all of the defendants' waterfront lots in the said subdivision resulting in great loss and injury to the plaintiffs.
We find no error in the ruling appealed from.
As a matter of pleading, the complaint was subject to dismissal because of the misjoinder of separate and independent causes of action. Compare John W. Campbell Farms, Inc., v. Zeda, Fla., 59 So.2d 750.
Aside from this, the complaint contained a greater infirmity which required its dismissal. The complaint shows on its face that the plaintiffs' claims, whatever they may be, are predicated upon the alleged breach of an oral promise concerning an easement in land--the ownership of which is not alleged nor the location or description given.
We assume from these allegations that what the plaintiffs complain of is the fact that the defendants orally agreed and represented, in order to induce the plaintiffs to purchase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. Brooks
...by our statute of frauds. Elsberry v. Sexton, 61 Fla. 162, 54 So. 592, 593 (Fla.1911) (cites omitted). And in Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla.1953), which involved an oral promise to create an easement that the court found "is clearly within the terms of the statute o......
-
Arnold & Associates, Inc. v. Misys Healthcare Systems, No. CIV-03-0287-PHX-ROS (D. Ariz. 7/31/2003)
...no intention of performing it.'" Lininger v. Sonenblick, 23 Ariz. App. 266, 269, 532 P.2d 538, 541 (1975) (quoting Canell v. Arcola Hous. Corp., 65 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1953)). As one of the nine essential of fraud, the absence in the Complaint of any allegations of a justifiable right to r......
-
Arnold & Associates v. Misys Healthcare Systems, CIV-03-0287PHXROS.
...intention of performing it.'" Lininger v. Sonenblick, 23 Ariz.App. 266, 269, 532 P.2d 538, 541 (1975) (quoting Canell v. Arcola Hous. Corp., 65 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla.1953)). As one of the nine essential elements of fraud, the absence in the Complaint of any allegations of a justifiable right ......
-
Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc.
...frauds. Under Florida law a fraud action may not be used to recover for breach of an unenforceable oral contract. Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So.2d 849, 851 (Fla.1953). Nor may recovery be had for fraudulent inducement to enter an unenforceable oral contract. Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pic......
-
The economic loss rule and fraudulent inducement claims.
...2000). (8) FLA. STAT. [sections]687.0304(2) (1989). (9) Puff 'N Stuff, 683 So. 2d at 1177, citing to Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953) (statute of frauds may not be avoided by suit for fraud based upon oral representations). (10) Puff 'N Stuff, 683 So. 2d at 1179-80.......