Norman v. Padgett, No. 4D12–1047.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation125 So.3d 977
Docket NumberNo. 4D12–1047.
Decision Date19 June 2013
PartiesTerry L. NORMAN, Appellant, v. Jack “Jackson” PADGETT, Mark Negrete, George L. Kessinger, Adam Burnett and Ronald F. Gofrank, Appellees.

125 So.3d 977

Terry L. NORMAN, Appellant,
v.
Jack “Jackson” PADGETT, Mark Negrete, George L. Kessinger, Adam Burnett and Ronald F. Gofrank, Appellees.

No. 4D12–1047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District.

June 19, 2013.


[125 So.3d 978]


Jose R. Riguera of Berman, Kean & Riguera, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Paul K. Silverberg and Kraig S. Weiss of Silverberg & Weiss, P.A., Weston, for Appellee–Padgett.


PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Terry Norman, appeals from a summary judgment entered against him on his claim for breach of contract against the buyers of his shares in Gat Bar, Inc., and also from a final judgment entered against him after a non-jury trial on the buyers' counterclaim for fraud in the inducement concerning the sale of the stock. Without further discussion, we affirm the trial court's entry of summary judgment against Norman on his claim against the buyers for breach of contract. However, we reverse the final judgment in favor of the buyers on their counterclaim for fraudulent inducement.

The sufficiency of the evidence is an issue of law reviewed de novo. See Fina v. Hennarichs, 19 So.3d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). “When an action has been tried by the court without a jury, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment may be raised on appeal whether or not the party raising the question has made any objection thereto in the trial court or made a motion for rehearing, for new trial, or to alter or amend the judgment.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(e).

The issue we address in this case is whether the buyers were justified in relying on the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the payroll costs of the business.

“The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation is not justified in relying upon its truth if he knows that it is false or its falsity is obvious to him.” Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995, 997 (Fla.1980).

Here, the gravamen of the fraudulent inducement claim was that one of the sellers of the business falsely represented that the payroll expenses for the business would be $17,500 per week, when in fact the weekly payroll expenses were over $15,000 higher. However, in a pro forma document that one of the buyers prepared before purchasing the business, there is a section labeled “Staffing Assumptions,” which indicates that the total labor costs would be over $35,000 per week. Thus, the buyers were either aware of the falsity of the alleged misrepresentation or its falsity would have been obvious to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Mace v. M&T Bank, Case No. 2D16-3381
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 25, 2020
    ...the issue being preserved with a motion in the trial court. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(e). Our review is de novo. See Norman v. Padgett, 125 So. 3d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Legally sufficient evidence is generally understood to be equivalent to competent substantial evidence. See, e.g.,......
  • Padgett v. Kessinger, No. 4D14–229.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 8, 2015
    ...contract, but reversed the final judgment in favor of the buyers on their counterclaim for fraudulent inducement. See Norman v. Padgett, 125 So.3d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We held as a matter of law that Norman was not liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, and we remanded for entry of ju......
  • Whittaker v. Whittaker, 4D20-641
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 17, 2021
    ...issue of law, see Hanson v. Hanson, 217 So.3d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), and therefore, is reviewed de novo, see Norman v. Padgett, 125 So.3d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Former Husband is correct, that "[n]et income rather than gross income is relevant when calculating support awards,......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Williamson, No. 4D15–286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 13, 2016
    ...1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted). “The sufficiency of the evidence is an issue of law reviewed de novo. ” Norman v. Padgett, 125 So.3d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). This case is controlled by Vidal v. Liquidation Properties, Inc., 104 So.3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). There, the bo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Mace v. M&T Bank, Case No. 2D16-3381
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 25, 2020
    ...the issue being preserved with a motion in the trial court. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(e). Our review is de novo. See Norman v. Padgett, 125 So. 3d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Legally sufficient evidence is generally understood to be equivalent to competent substantial evidence. See, e.g.,......
  • Padgett v. Kessinger, No. 4D14–229.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 8, 2015
    ...contract, but reversed the final judgment in favor of the buyers on their counterclaim for fraudulent inducement. See Norman v. Padgett, 125 So.3d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). We held as a matter of law that Norman was not liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, and we remanded for entry of ju......
  • Whittaker v. Whittaker, 4D20-641
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • November 17, 2021
    ...issue of law, see Hanson v. Hanson, 217 So.3d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), and therefore, is reviewed de novo, see Norman v. Padgett, 125 So.3d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Former Husband is correct, that "[n]et income rather than gross income is relevant when calculating support awards,......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Williamson, No. 4D15–286.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • July 13, 2016
    ...1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (citation omitted). “The sufficiency of the evidence is an issue of law reviewed de novo. ” Norman v. Padgett, 125 So.3d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). This case is controlled by Vidal v. Liquidation Properties, Inc., 104 So.3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). There, the bo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT