Sewell v. D'alessandro & Woodyard Inc
Citation | 709 F.Supp.2d 1251 |
Decision Date | 28 April 2010 |
Docket Number | Case No. 2:07-cv-343-FtM-29SPC. |
Parties | Randolph SEWELL, Daphne Sewell, Moses Eshkenazi, Therese Eshkenazi, and Henriette Eshkenazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,v.D'ALESSANDRO & WOODYARD, INC., a Florida for profit corporation; Gates, D'Alessandro & Woodyard, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; K. Hovnanian First Homes, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; First Home Builders of Florida, a Florida general partnership; First Home Builders of Florida I, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; Jan Baillargeon, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Frank D'Alessandro, deceased; Samir Cabrera, an individual; Honora Kreitner, an individual; Bruce A. Robb, an individual; and Patrick Logue, an individual, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Gary C. Rosen, Daniel L. Wallach, Becker & Poliakoff, PA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Philip J. Snyderburn, William M. Rishoi, Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann, Maitland, FL, Jon Douglas Parrish, Parrish, Lawhon & Yarnell, PA, Naples, FL, Raquel M. Fernandez, Cozen O'Connor, Melissa Cade Pallett-Vasquez, Robert William Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod, LLP, Miami, FL, Charles Wachter, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gianluca Morello, Wiand Guerra King, PL, Laura E. Ward, Ronald Sturgis Holliday, DLA Piper US LLP, Tampa, FL, Allison S. Bernstein, Butzel Long, Palm Beach, FL, Barry A. Postman, S. Jonathan Vine, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, Ronald L. Buschbom, Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans & Abel, PA, Ft. Myers, FL, Robert J. Pratte, DLA Piper US, LLP, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on K. Hovnanian First Homes, LLC's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. # 292) and Defendant Bruce A. Robb's Motion for Reconsideration and Extension of Time to File Answer to Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 295). Defendants ask the court to reconsider a portion of its Opinion and Order (Doc. # 290). Sewell v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc., 655 F.Supp.2d 1228 (M.D.Fla.2009). No responses have been filed, and the time to respond has expired.
In that Opinion and Order, the Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss Count VII, a breach of contract claim, because parol evidence may be admissible under the Florida inducement exception to the parol evidence rule. While not disputing that Florida law contains an inducement exception, defendants assert that the Court overlooked a decision which provides that the exception is not applicable in the circumstances of this case. Defendants rely upon Ungerleider v. Gordon, 214 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir.2000) for the proposition that “under Florida law, the inducement exception does not apply where ‘the alleged oral agreement relate[s] to the identical subject matter embodied in the written agreement and ... directly contradict[s] an express provision of the written agreement.” (Doc. # 292, p. 2) (quoting Ungerleider, 214 F.3d at 1282 (citations omitted)).
Ungerleider correctly summarized Florida law: “In sum, the inducement exception permits parol evidence of a contemporaneous oral agreement to vary, change, or reform a written instrument, [ ] but not to directly contradict it.” 214 F.3d at 1284 (internal quotations and citation omitted). As Sunset Pointe at Silver Lakes Assocs. Ltd. v. Vargas, 881 So.2d 12, 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) more recently stated, “[t]he inducement exception, however, does not apply where the oral statement directly contradicts the written agreement.”
In Count VII, plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their contractual promises to provide them with (a) a guaranteed tenant, (b) a fourteen percent annual rate of return, and (c) no out-of-pocket expenses other than their initial contract deposit. (Doc. # 205, ¶ 137.) The written agreements make no such promises, so the only possible basis for such a breach of contract claim would be the existence of contemporaneous oral agreements. As noted above, Florida law bars such testimony if the oral agreements “directly contradict” the written agreements. Each of the Purchase Agreements contained the following provision:
Buyer further acknowledges that Builder/Seller had made no guarantees that relate to appreciation of the value of this home or any other real estate, to the rental rates or vacancy factors associated with any real estate, nor to the ability to secure renters or subsequent buyers for this home or any other real estate.
The Court finds that this contractual provision directly contradicts the alleged oral agreements in (a) and (b) of ¶ 137, Second Amended Class Action Complaint, and therefore parole evidence will not be admissible. The Court finds that the contractual provision does not refer to, and therefore does not directly contradict, the out-of-pocket expenses alleged in (c). The contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Emjay Envtl. Recycling, Ltd.
...Cir. 2000)12. Nonetheless, this is the very type of evidence upon which Defendant relies. See, e.g., Sewell v. D'Allessandro &Woodyard, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2010); Madsen, Sapp, Mena, Rodriguez & Co., P.A., 899 So. 2d at 436 (holding that the parol evidence rule precl......
-
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Emjay Envtl. Recycling, Ltd., 12-CV-1865(JS)(AKT)
...Nonetheless, this is the very type of evidence upon which Defendant relies. See, e.g., Sewell v. D'Allessandro &Page 26Woodyard, Inc., 709 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2010); Madsen, Sapp, Mena, Rodriguez & Co., P.A., 899 So. 2d at 436 (holding that the parol evidence rule precluded ev......
- Brayshaw v. City Of Tallahassee
-
Davis v. AVVO, Inc.
...disclaimers. See Sewell v. D'Allessandro & Woodyard, 655 F.Supp,2d 1228, 1259 (M.D. Fla. 2009), amended on reconsideration by, 709 F.Supp.2d 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2010), amended in part and vacated in part by, 725 F.Supp.2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 2010). Similarly, in Siever, the court denied a motion fo......