Martin v. Brown
| Decision Date | 12 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-0302,89-0302 |
| Citation | 566 So.2d 890 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2285 Cleason MARTIN, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. William W. BROWN, Appellee/Cross Appellant. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John W. Case, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross appellee.
Mitchell E. Widom of Dunn, Dresnick, Lodish & Miller, Miami, for appellee/cross appellant.
Appellee, Brown, purchased a condominium unit with the expectation that he would be assigned parking space number 9 as part of the transaction. When he discovered that he had received instead parking space number 5 he filed suit against appellant, Martin, for fraudulent representation. The trial court awarded appellee damages resulting from fraudulent representation in the amount of $10,000, hence this appeal.
The elements of actionable fraud are (1) a false statement concerning a material fact; (2) knowledge by the person making the statement that the representation is false; (3) the intent by the person making the statement that the representation will induce another to act on it; and (4) reliance on the representation to the injury of the other party. In summary, there must be an intentional material misrepresentation upon which the other party relies to his detriment.
Lance v. Wade, 457 So.2d 1008, 1011 (Fla.1984); First Interstate Dev. v. Ablanedo, 476 So.2d 692 (Fla.1985), quashed in part on other grounds, 511 So.2d 536 (Fla.1987).
The weakest element in appellee's case in the court below relates to the issue of injury. Appellee claimed that nonreceipt of parking spot number 9 was an injury. However, appellee did receive parking space number 5. In order for an injury to have occurred, parking space number 9 would have to be valued higher than parking space number 5. Appellee presented the testimony of an expert that parking space number 9 was worth between $8,500 and $10,000. He presented no evidence as to the value of space number 5. However, appellant testified that space number 5 was a covered spot and that he had sold other covered spots individually for $1,500. It is therefore reasonable to assume, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that space number 5 had a value of $1,500. This is an inference which the trial court was permitted to draw from the evidence and supports a finding of injury.
Assuming, however, that parking space number 9 had a value of $10,000 and space number 5 was worth $1,500, the damage award of $10,000 is clearly erroneous.
Florida has adopted two standards for the measurement of damages in an action for fraudulent representation. Either may be used to do justice as the circumstances demand. The first standard is the "benefit of the bargain" rule which awards as damages the difference between the actual value of the property and its value had the alleged facts regarding it been true. The second standard is the "out-of-pocket" rule which awards as damages the difference between the purchase price and the real or actual value of the property. Strickland v. Muir, 198 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., 231 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So.2d 105 (Fla.1970).
The trial court did not specify what measure of damages it used, what value it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan Stanley & Co. v. Coleman Holdings
...is the `benefit-of-the-bargain' rule. . . . The second standard is the `out-of-pocket' rule . . . ." [e.s.] See Martin v. Brown, 566 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also Strickland v. Muir, 198 So.2d 49, 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), receded from on other grounds, Teca, Inc. v. WM-TAB, In......
-
Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp.
...of the bargain" rules in fraud cases and choose between them as circumstances require to do substantial justice); Martin v. Brown, 566 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (applying "benefit of the bargain" formula in a fraudulent representation case); Ft. Lauderdale Lincoln Mercury v. Corgna......
-
Nordyne, Inc. v. Florida Mobile Home Supply, Inc.
...DuPuis v. 79th Street Hotel, Inc., 231 So.2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So.2d 105 (Fla.1970). Thus, in Martin v. Brown, 566 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), relying upon DuPuis and Strickland v. Muir, 198 So.2d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), the court said: "Florida has adopted two st......
-
Perera v. Diolife LLC
...between the actual value of the property and its value had the alleged facts regarding it been true." Id. (quoting Martin v. Brown , 566 So.2d 890, 891-92 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ). But Kind involved a claim for fraudulent inducement, and this appeal does not.Still, Diolife is correct that the ......
-
Fraud
...1994), cause dismissed , 637 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1994). 6. Sheen v. Jenkins , 629 So.2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). 7. Martin v. Brown , 566 So.2d 890, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). 8. A.S.J. Drugs, Inc. v. Berkowitz , 459 So.2d 348, 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). 9. Lawnwood Med. Ctr., Inc., v. Sadow......