Lynch v. Fanning, AR-13
| Citation | 440 So.2d 79 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. AR-13,AR-13 |
| Parties | Hugh C. LYNCH, Appellant, v. W.H. FANNING, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Siegfried F. Kessler of Smith, Grimsley, Remington, Kessler & Simpson, Fort Walton Beach, for appellant.
Richard H. Powell of Estergren, Fortune, Anchors & Powell, Fort Walton Beach, for appellee.
Lynch appeals the summary judgment granted in favor of Fanning. He contends that the trial court erred in ruling as a matter of law that he had a duty to ensure that he was purchasing the property described in a survey furnished to him by the seller of said property, that is, Fanning. We reverse.
Lynch purchased a tract of property in Okaloosa County from Fanning. Prior to such purchase, Fanning obtained a survey of the property from a registered surveyor. The survey indicated in its legal description that the subject property had 125 feet of water frontage. The lot drawing contained on the survey did not reflect or measure the water frontage. A copy of this survey was furnished to Lynch. Lynch also obtained a print-out of the Multiple Listing Service describing the property as "Lot 20, Cobb's Point" having 125 feet of water frontage. Additionally, Lynch reviewed an undated and unrecorded plat of the property which plat reflected this property as having 125 feet of water frontage. This plat was furnished to Lynch by his real estate agent. Also, Lynch inspected the road frontage of the subject property prior to his purchase, but due to the density of the timber on the property, did not inspect the water frontage.
Lynch submitted a written offer to purchase the subject property which, after amendment, was accepted by Fanning. The contract contained no reference to water frontage, but did give Lynch the right to secure a survey prior to closing. Lynch did not exercise his right to conduct a survey and closed on the transaction about two months after submitting his offer to purchase.
Approximately thirteen months subsequent to closing, Lynch obtained a survey of the property in connection with the construction of a sea wall. This survey indicated that the water frontage of the property was 96 feet, rather than 125 feet. Lynch then instituted an action against Fanning for breach of contract seeking therein damages. Fanning moved for summary judgment. This motion was granted; the court found that as a matter of law Lynch had the duty to ensure that he was purchasing the property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc.
...court had applied Besett 's logic regarding fraudulent misrepresentations to a case involving negligence claims. See Lynch v. Fanning, 440 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Gilchrist argues that the rule should be the same for both a fraudulent misrepresentation and a negligent misrepresentatio......
-
Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc., 94-3521
...it noted that a purchaser would not be justified in relying on an obviously false representation. Plaintiffs also cite Lynch v. Fanning, 440 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1983), in which a buyer failed to exercise his contractual right to secure a survey and thus did not discover that the seller......
-
Yost v. Rieve Enterprises, Inc., s. AR-490
...legal effect is the same. Langley v. Irons Land & Development Co., 94 Fla. 1010, 114 So. 769 (1927). Held at 632-33; Lynch v. Fanning, 440 So.2d 79, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Additionally, the party guilty of the fraudulent misrepresentation may not be shielded by the doctrine of caveat empto......
-
Gilchrist Timber Co. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc.
...plaintiffs' position that defendant made a representation about zoning by passing on the appraisal. For example, in Lynch v. Fanning, 440 So.2d 79 (Fla. 1st D.C.A.1983), the seller of property procured a survey indicating the property had 125 feet of water frontage. The seller provided a co......