Silverman v. Pitterman
| Decision Date | 12 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2550,89-2550 |
| Citation | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 456,574 So.2d 275 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 456 Judith SILVERMAN, Appellant, v. Harvey PITTERMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nicolas A. Manzini, Miami, and Jeremy A. Koss, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Stewart A. Merkin, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
Appellant Judith Silverman claims the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in real estate broker Harvey Pitterman's favor in her action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for Pitterman's alleged breach of fiduciary duty. We find that issues of fact existed which precluded the order granting summary judgment and we reverse on that basis.
Robert and Judith Silverman were parties to a heated and bitter dissolution of marriage proceeding. The Silvermans' final judgment of dissolution of marriage ordered that the marital home be sold and the proceeds split equally between the spouses. Upon Mr. Silverman's recommendation and with Mrs. Silverman's approval, the couple entered into a listing agreement with Pitterman. Several weeks after the home was listed for sale, the broker informed Mrs. Silverman that an offer had been received. The offer was subsequently accepted and the sale concluded. Prior to entering the listing agreement, Mrs. Silverman knew the broker had acted as her ex-spouse's expert witness at the couple's dissolution proceeding. However, unbeknownst to Mrs. Silverman, the broker was romantically involved with her ex-spouse's divorce attorney. Mrs. Silverman claims that had she known of this romantic relationship, she never would have hired Pitterman. Thus, she argues, the broker's failure to disclose this information constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty and constructive fraud. Further, she asserts that under the broker's biased supervision, the home sold for less than its fair market value.
A broker's duty to his principal is one of trust, confidence, good faith, and loyalty. Chisman v. Moylan, 105 So.2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). A broker is obligated to inform the principal of any circumstance which might reasonably be expected to influence the complete loyalty of the broker to the interests of his principal, or that might reasonably be expected to influence the principal in negotiations. MacGregor v. Florida Real Estate Comm'n, 99 So.2d 709 (Fla.1958). The broker is obligated to inform his principal with "fairness, promptness, and completeness" concerning all facts within his knowledge which are material to his representation. Chisman, 105 So.2d at 189. See Connelly v. Special Road & Bridge Dist. No. 5, 99 Fla. 456, 126 So. 794 (1930); Kline v. Pyms Suchman Real Estate Co., 303 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So.2d 588 (Fla.1975); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 381 (1958). A material fact is generally defined as one to which a reasonable person would attach importance in determining a choice of action. See Black's Law Dictionary 881 (5th ed. 1979); 12 C.J.S. Brokers § 57 (1980).
Under Florida law, materiality is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. See Atlantic Nat'l Bank of Florida v. Vest, 480 So.2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Duignan, Case No. 2D15–5055
...regarding false representations in an insurance policy application, is to be determined under an objective test); Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So.2d 275, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("A material fact is generally defined as one to which a reasonable person would attach importance in determining a......
-
Nichols v. Minnick
...190 (Me.1996) (same); Quechee Lakes Rental Corp. v. Boggess, 158 Vt. 258, 608 A.2d 39, 43 (1992) (same); see Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So.2d 275, 276-77 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1991) (not considering harm); Owen v. Shelton, 221 Va. 1051, 277 S.E.2d 189, 192 (1981) (same). But see Ziswasser v. Co......
-
Humana, Inc. v. Castillo, 98-01992.
...Crosby, 712 So.2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). To further support certification of this class, the trial court referenced Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), for the proposition that materiality of fact is objective and can be determined by a jury on a class-wide basis. The......
-
Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. The Right Spinal Clinic, Inc.
... ... Under ... Florida law, materiality is a question of fact for a jury to ... decide. See Silverman v. Pitterman, 574 So.2d 275, ... 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (collecting cases showing that ... materiality of a negligent misrepresentation, ... ...