Lance v. Wade
| Decision Date | 30 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 63242,63242 |
| Citation | 457 So.2d 1008 |
| Parties | Joseph T. LANCE, et al., Petitioners, v. Charles H. WADE, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Karl Beckmeyer, Tavernier, for petitioners.
Jay M. Levy of Hershoff & Levy, and George M. Nachwalter, Miami, for respondents.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal reported as Lance v. Wade, 424 So.2d 161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), in which the district court held that a class action could be brought on the ground of fraud. We find direct conflict with Avila South Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kappa Corp., 347 So.2d 599 (Fla.1977), and Osceola Groves v. Wiley, 78 So.2d 700 (Fla.1955). We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we quash the decision of the district court. In so doing, we reaffirm our previous decisions in which we held that fraud on individual contracts could not be a basis for a class action. We also find that the respondents have available suitable remedies in the form of individual actions for breach of contract, cancellation and rescission, or specific performance. Accordingly, we remand without prejudice to the respondents' right to institute these types of actions. 1
The relevant facts reflect that respondents Wade and Herringer were two of approximately 350 purchasers of mobile home lots in Cross Key Waterways in Monroe County. These two lot owners filed a class action against the seller of the lots, Cross Key Waterways, Inc., and its president, Joseph T. Lance, alleging that they had relied to their detriment upon fraudulent representations by the seller contained in the public offering statement, advertising brochures, and contracts for deed, and upon fraudulent representations by the seller's employees. The alleged statements and representations involved assertions that access from the lots to a nearby highway would be provided by means of paved roads constructed in accordance with the specifications of the Monroe County engineer. It was alleged that petitioners knew or should have known that these statements concerning the construction of roads were false and that petitioners had no intention of paving these streets. Further respondents alleged that the purchasing parties would not have purchased lots in Cross Key had they known of the misrepresentation. Respondents specifically alleged that the "individual Plaintiffs, as representatives of the class, did in fact rely upon the representations" and that the "representation concerning paved roads and streets was a material representation which was relied upon by the Plaintiffs both individually and as representatives of the class." The primary alleged misrepresentation was contained in a public offering statement which provided, in part, as follows:
Improvements will include installation of a water line in front of each lot, construction of a graded, rolled, water-bonded, oiled and sanded road, an elevation of four feet at the crown of the road, in accordance with county engineering requirements. All improvements will commence with Section One, next Section Three will be improved and lastly Section Two, although the latter two sections may be developed simultaneously if circumstances so dictate. The roads will be installed at the time the lots are filled and graded. Section One will be completed on or before March 31, 1971, Section Three on or before December 31, 1971 and Section Two on or before August 31, 1972. Roads will be maintained by subdivider until maintenance is taken over by the Cross Key Waterways Property Owners Association, Inc.
The evidence reflects that some purchasers did not receive this public offering statement until after they had purchased a lot.
Respondents also asserted that another misrepresentation, allegedly relied upon by some of the owners, was contained in an advertising flyer which stated: Again, the record indicates that some purchasers did not receive this flyer.
The trial court permitted the action to proceed as a class action based on fraud. Following a jury trial, verdicts were returned in the amount of $200,000 compensatory damages and $300,000 punitive damages against the corporate defendant, Cross Key Waterways, Inc.; and $50,000 compensatory damages and $60,000 punitive damages against its president, Lance.
On appeal, the principal issue was whether the trial court had erred in submitting this cause to the jury as a class action sounding in fraud. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, interpreting our decision in Frankel v. City of Miami Beach, 340 So.2d 463 (Fla.1976), as having limited our decision in Osceola Groves. The district court stated that since the three-pronged test established in Frankel had been met, in that the plaintiff class was engaged in a cooperative enterprise, had a joint pecuniary interest, and did not have a choice of remedies which were possibly subject to separate and distinct defenses, the suit was properly submitted as a class action. 424 So.2d at 161. We disagree. The district court has misinterpreted our Frankel decision. We did not, as the district court contends, retreat in that decision from the prohibition of fraud class actions based on separate contracts which was established in Osceola Groves and reaffirmed in Avila. In fact, the complaint in Frankel did not allege fraud. The issue was whether the fraud class action rule adopted in Osceola Groves should be given general application "to class actions wherein fraud has not been alleged." 340 So.2d at 468.
Our decision in Osceola Groves dealt with a situation similar to that presented in the instant case. There, purchasers of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.
...of the appraisal, there is no evidence that Assalone intentionally defrauded Battaglia. See Ablanedo, 511 So.2d at 536; Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1984). Assalone neither knew that the appraisal was false nor that the value of the equipment was other than as represented. Finally, Ba......
-
In re Std. Jury Instructions in Civil Cases -- Report No. 09-01
...in First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So.2d 536 (Fla.1987); Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985); Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1984); Wallerstein v. Hospital Corp. of America, 573 So.2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA Atlantic National Bank v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA ......
-
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.
...to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(a). I believe that this procedure would conform to what this Court allowed in Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1984). 16. Barnes was decided, and thus this footnote was written, before the Maryland Court of Appeals (Maryland's court of last resort)......
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Case—-Report Number
...in First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So.2d 536 (Fla.1987); Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985); Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008 (Fla.1984); Wallerstein v. Hospital Corp. of America, 573 So.2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Atlantic National Bank v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328 (Fla. ......
-
Fraud
...misrepresentation.”). See Also 1. Prentice v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co ., 2022 WL 805951, *4 (Fla. Mar. 17, 2022). 2. Lance v. Wade , 457 So.2d 1008, 1011 (Fla. 1984). 3. American International Land Corp. v. Hanna , 323 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla. 1975). 4. Joiner v. McCullers , 28 So.2d 823, 824 ......
-
1-3 First Predicate: Attorney's Employment
...Gutter v. Wunker, 631 So. 2d 1117, 1118 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App.), cause dismissed, 637 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1994) (citing Lance v. Wade, 457 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1984), and A.S.J. Drugs, Inc. v. Berkowitz, 459 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1984)).[181] Don Slack Ins., Inc. v. Fidelity & Cas......
-
Class actions: fundamentals of certification analysis.
...See, e.g., In re Agricultural Chems. Antitrust Litig., 1995-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) (paragraph) 71, 197 (N.D. Fla. 1995). [48] Lance v. Wade, 457 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 1984) ("fraud on individual contracts could not be a basis for a class action"); Southeast Bank, N.A. v. Almeida, 693 So. 2d 1......