Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Centers (Eastern), Inc.
Decision Date | 09 April 1991 |
Docket Number | Nos. 90-821,s. 90-821 |
Parties | FUTURA REALTY, Appellant, v. LONE STAR BUILDING CENTERS (EASTERN), INC., et al., Appellees. to 90-824. 578 So.2d 363, 16 Fla. L. Week. 960 |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Lapidus & Frankel and Richard L. Lapidus, Miami, for appellant.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Daniels & Talisman and Sam Daniels, Peeples, Earl & Blank, Jorden, Schulte & Burchette, and Frank Burt, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and James M. Porter and Anne Talbot, Miami, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
In these consolidated appeals, appellant, Futura Realty, Inc. (Futura), the current corporate owner of a parcel of land at 7000 Coral Way in Dade County (the site), claims first, that the property's immediate previous owner, Stanley S. Davidson (Davidson), committed fraud by failing to inform appellant of certain pollution problems on the property until after its purchase, and second, that Davidson, as well as a prior owner, CSX Transportation, Inc. (Seaboard), and lessee, Lone Star Building Centers (Eastern), Inc. (Lone Star), are strictly liable to Futura for damage done to the site through the use of certain ultrahazardous chemicals. 1 The trial court granted summary judgments to each defendant. We affirm upon the following analysis.
Futura's claims rest on two key cases, both of which we find inapplicable to the facts at hand. First, relying on Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985), Futura claims Davidson knew of the site's pollution prior to the site's sale to Futura and that because Davidson did not inform Futura as to the pollution and because the pollution was not readily observable, Davidson is liable to Futura for fraudulent concealment. We disagree that Johnson controls. In Johnson, the purchasers of a home brought an action against the home's vendors relying on the vendor's false statement that there was no problem with the home's roof. The court concluded that the doctrine of caveat emptor does not exempt a home's vendor from responsibility for statements and representations which he makes to induce a purchaser to act when, under the circumstances, the statements amount to fraud in the legal sense. 480 So.2d at 627. Further, that case established that where the home vendor knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the purchaser, he is under a duty to disclose them to the purchaser. Finally, the court observed, "[T]his duty is equally applicable to all forms of real property, new and used."
It appears that Futura rests its claim of fraud in this sale of a commercial site on that statement. However, the statement when read in context, as it must be, clearly applies solely to the sale of homes. Nowhere does the court conclude that the duty of disclosure is present in the sale of commercial property. Further, the cases relied on in Johnson are not commercial land sale cases. Nowhere does Johnson address or change the long line of case law establishing caveat emptor as the rule in the sale of commercial property. See Conklin v. Hurley, 428 So.2d 654 (Fla.1983) ( ). Johnson simply does not impose a duty of disclosure in a commercial setting.
Thus, we need not consider the factual allegations as to the obvious nature of the large treatment vats on the site or the visible chemical spills discoloring soil on the property. See Simmons v. Owens, 363 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ( ); Maas Bros., Inc. v. Bishop, 204 So.2d 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) ( ). Likewise, we need not evaluate the experienced nature of Futura's representative in the sale, as a longtime developer, real estate broker and lawyer. See U.S. Home Corp. v. Metropolitan Property & Liab. Ins. Co., 516 So.2d 3, 4 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ( ). No questions of fact precluding summary judgment remain.
Second, Futura claims reliance on the rule of strict liability for ultrahazardous activity resulting in damage to a neighbor's property as laid down by the English court in Rylands v. Fletcher, L.R., 3 H.L. 330 (1868), and long followed by Florida courts. See Great Lakes Dredging and Dock Co. v. Sea Gull Operating Corp., 460 So.2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) ( ). See also Pensacola Gas Co. v. Pebley, 25 Fla. 381, 5 So. 593 (1889); Bunyak v. Clyde J. Yancey and Sons Dairy, Inc., 438 So.2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), review denied, 447 So.2d 885 (Fla.1984); Cities Serv. Co. v. State, 312 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Texaco, Inc.
...F.Supp. at 101-02; Rosenblatt, 642 A.2d at 188-90; Hydro-Manufacturing, Inc., 640 A.2d at 959; Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Ctrs. (Eastern), Inc., 578 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla.App.3d Dist.), review denied, 591 So.2d 181 (Fla.1991). As the court explained in When an owner or occupier of land ......
-
Andritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc.
...423 (E.D.N.Y.1994); Hydro-Manufacturing, Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 640 A.2d 950, 955 (R.I.1994); and Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Centers, 578 So.2d 363 (Fla.App. 3 Dist.1991), review denied, 591 So.2d 181 Of the jurisdictions reviewed, New Jersey appears to be unique in recognizing a ......
-
Motor Ave. Co. v. Liberty Indus. Finishing Corp., CV 91-0968 (CBA).
...action from a claim available to neighbors to a claim available to subsequent owners of the property. Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Ctrs., Inc., 578 So.2d 363 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991). The decision of the New Jersey Court in T & E Industries has been recognized by legal commentators as not......
-
Kennedy Building Associates v. Viacom, Inc.
...S.W.2d 90, 97 (Tex.Civ.App.1998); Hydro-Mfg., Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 640 A.2d 950, 958 (R.I.1994); Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Ctrs., 578 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1991); Andritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc. v. Beazer East Inc., 174 F.R.D. 609, 623-26 (M.D.Pa.1997); Cross Oil Co. v. P......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...Tenn. 1986); Pensacola Gas Co. v. Pebley, 25 Fla. 381,390, 5 So. 593, 595 (1889); Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Cents. (E.), Inc., 578 So.2d 363, 365 (Fla. App. 1991); Bunyak v. Clyde J. Yancey & Sons Dairy, Inc., 438 So.2d 891,893 (Fla. App. 1983); Cities Serv. Co. v. State, 312 So.......
-
Bad policy: CERCLA's amended liability for new purchasers.
...contain hazardous materials in violation of Connecticut's counterpart to CERCLA); Futura Realty v. Lone Star Bldg. Ctrs. (Eastern), Inc., 578 So. 2d 363, 364 n.1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (describing property that was the site of wood treatment plant that used heavy metals and other hazard......