Do Walk-Throughs and Inspections Hurt a Misrepresentation Claim?

Posted By on October 6, 2015

More and more these days, Florida real estate buyers are purchasing a home or condo without personally stepping foot on the property. When this happens, the buyer usually relies on someone acting on their behalf (e.g., a friend or family member). Moreover, with the innovations of the internet virtual tours and real estate brokers offering detailed video visits of properties to prospective buyers, it is possible for someone to buy residential real estate here without a real “look” at the property beforehand to investigate the condition of the property (also, they may buy property without paying for a professional inspector to check out the property and give them an inspection report). This is true even though the buyer has the right to have an inspection done, but it’s not legally a must.

Is this wise? It’s always best practice to step foot on any real estate before you invest your money. Also, having a professional inspector check out the property for hidden defects or repair issues can save a lot of trouble later. However, inspections can be costly. Videos and trusted “agents” may be enough for some buyers; they may think it’s worth the risk especially if they are buying a vacation home or an investment property.

However, what happens after the sale if there are problems with the home? Does this buyer waive any kind of damages claim against the seller or his / her representatives if he/she discovers problems after closing?


FEMA - 8 - Photograph by Dave Saville taken on 10-01-1999 in North Carolina


Misrepresentation for Failure to Disclose Even After Mr. Plezia’s Walk-Through

In the case of Southern Nat. Track Services v. Gilley, 152 So. 3d 13 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014), there was a lawsuit filed for fraudulent misrepresentation in a real estate deal where several cottages and a larger “modular” home were being sold together (all on one lot). The modular home was advertised as a two-bedroom residence with amenities that included a swimming pool and a fountain.

The buyer was a company named Southern National Track Services, and its employee, Mr. Plezia, was sent to check the place out and close the deal. The company wanted to buy a place where its employees could stay when they were working in the Florida area, instead of a hotel or long-term rental arrangement. Mr. Plezia would be one of those employees staying in the new corporate housing, so he was looking not only at properties as a company investment but as his personal home away from home.

The seller, D.J. Gilley, understood that Mr. Plezia was acting as agent for his company when he expressed interest in her property. Mr. Plezia visited the site before making any deal; it wasn’t a long visit.

He walked through the property with the real estate agent, with all its cottages as well as the main house.

He did a second walk-through with the seller personally. During that second visit, the seller told Mr. Plezia details about the main house that supported his idea that it had been designed and built as single family housing. He was told that the seller, her daughter, and her parents had all lived in the two-bedroom modular home at one point.

Mr. Plezia signed a purchase agreement for the place. In it, he was given a right to have a property inspection by a “home inspector” within 20 days of accepting the seller’s offer. The purchase agreement also had the protective provision that the seller warranted as of the time of closing, there were no violations of “land use plans, zoning, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority ….”

Mr. Plezia did not have the property inspected before closing. (He had bought real estate before without home inspections and never had a problem.) There was no confirmation given to him that the modular building was a residence.

The deal closed. The title was transferred. Months passed.

Then, Mr. Plezia discovered water leaks; they got worse as Florida’s rainy season hit. Black mold popped up on walls; it had been painted over and erupted in the humidity. He got an inspection. From the inspection, he discovered that the two-bedroom home wasn’t a modular residence. It was a large storage shed that had been coverted to a dwelling without anyone making sure that the renovation met zoning laws, or building codes. No one got a building permit before the changes were made.

So, the new owner sued for fraudulent misrepresentation; breach of contract warranty; and asked for damages as well as rescission of the deal, based in part on the landmark case of Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla.1985).

The seller defended herself by arguing that the buyer could have had an inspection before closing but chose not to do so. In sum, she argued that the buyer had failed to do his own due diligence before closing on the property, and if he had done so then all these complaints would have been made before the closing and he would not have incurred any damages. She also denied that she had any “knowledge of any Building Code compliance issues, any roof leaks, mold infestation or any other alleged defects” of the property.

At first, the trial court agreed with the seller and entered a summary judgment for her; however, the buyer appealed and the reviewing court determined that there were genuine issues of material fact on whether or not the buyer had been a victim of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Specifically, even if he had failed to inspect the place before closing, there was a question whether or not the seller or her agents had misrepresented to the buyer:

1) the very nature of the structure in question (i.e., a genuine residence built to those standards applying to residences, as opposed to a storage shed converted to a “residence” and not complying with such standards); and
2) whether the structure complied with various governmental laws and regulations.

The reviewing court returned the controversy for trial, leaving the parties to decide if they could resolve the dispute in settlement negotiations or try the case for a jury’s determination of justice.

Does The Failure to Inspect Prevent a Buyer From Making a Claim After Closing Against The Seller ?

Having an inspection of property before closing on a Florida real estate purchase is always a good idea. Trained professionals going through a property with an expert eye can expose all sorts of things that the buyer may not know exist and save that buyer lots of headaches (and expense) down the road. Moreover, having a buyer doing more than a quick walk-through of the property before spending money in a land purchase can help that buyer later. Taking pictures, and having the support and guidance of an experienced Florida real estate lawyer before closing is completed (as well as requesting and causing a real estate contract to be contingent upon a seller delivering a property disclosure statement) can protect the purchaser in all sorts of ways.

However, if a buyer doesn’t conduct inspections – or doesn’t visit the property before closing — it doesn’t mean that the buyer will not be able to pursue legal claims after closing, especially if they discover a hidden defect or problem with the home. Making a claim may be more difficult, but a Florida real estate attorney can work with a buyer to evaluate their situation to determine what claims and causes of action (like fraudulent misrepresentation) that they may have under Florida law against the seller as well as the seller’s real estate agent representatives.

Picture of Larry Tolchinsky

Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to Chat with Larry in the comments below, at, or (954) 458-8655. If you have a specific or personal situation, please call or email Larry because he can’t answer specific fact questions in general comments.

3 Types of Title Issues Which Impact Florida Real Estate Closings

Posted By on September 29, 2015

In South Florida, when a seller is told by a buyer’s title examiner that there is a “title issue,” that usually means that there is some sort of lien, defect or encumbrance in the public records which clouds the title to the property. In most instances, buyers won’t take ownership of property until a title issue is resolved (unless, the buyer is paying cash and is willing to take the property subject to the title defect).  The reason for this is because the buyer will likely be unable to obtain title insurance under the terms that most banks will require before they will lend any money to a home buyer/borrower.


Look it up


Discovering Title Defects

Usually, a seller learns of a title problem after a buyer has been found, a contract is signed, and the due diligence period is underway. As part of the “closing process,” a buyer will have a title insurance company or title agent conduct a search of the property records to make sure the title is clear. A Title search is required before any title insurance commitment or policy can be issued. (Almost all lenders will require a mortgagee title insurance commitment and policy as a condition to granting a loan and accepting a mortgage; buyers will also want a title policy of their own, which is known as an owner’s title insurance policy.)

3 Common Title Defects

While there are all sorts of ways that title can be defective, there are some defects that require the help of a Florida real estate lawyer to clear up before a closing can take place. These include:

1. Intentional Bad Acts

There are title issues which can be very difficult to solve because they are based upon intentional bad acts, like fraud or forgery. Forged deeds are void under Florida law. Even if a buyer innocently takes ownership of a home in Florida only to discover later that the deed has been forged, they’re not safe. A “bone fide purchaser” of real estate holding a forged deed has no legal title to the property under Florida law.

2. Third Party Rights

Often, buyers are surprised to learn that they aren’t the only party with an interest in the property. There may be creditors who have a claim to the property too. Liens often appear in the title search for debts that have not been paid by the seller (e.g., unpaid bill to the contractor who put in the swimming pool or added on the extra bedroom, liens by municipalities and estate creditors).

Additionally, there can be unsatisfied mortgages or easements that impact the property which have been recorded in the public records. These encumbrances create title issues, as do claims for violations of subdivision zoning laws, and restrictive covenants.

While filing a lien in the real property records doesn’t mean that the creditor owns an interest in the property, that lien can be enough to “cloud” the title. A lien attaches to property in Florida when (1) it meets the legal requirements for a lien; (2) the debt is within the statute of limitations for collecting on the debt; and (3) it’s a legal debt (for instance, debts based upon illegal activities like gambling, selling drugs, etc., cannot be the basis of a valid lien).

Government entities can also file liens in real estate records that create title defects. Here, local, state, or federal government liens are filed to collect unpaid taxes like ad valorem property taxes and income taxes. Civil forfeiture actions can also be filed by government agencies against pieces of property; here the government is seeking to take ownership of the asset. Property under forfeiture to the U.S. Government will usually have a document filed in the public records that announces that the property is subject to seizure.

3. Deed Problems

Sometimes, the deed looks okay on its face but there are problems when it’s looked at more closely. If someone signs a deed while of “unsound mind,” then they don’t have the ability to sign a legal document, including a deed. If a deed is signed by someone with a power of attorney, a title issue can arise if the power of attorney is invalid or defective (lack of witnesses, improper notarization, etc.).

If a deed involves homestead property which is owned by a husband and wife, then there can be a title defect if both spouses’ signatures aren’t on the deed. In the same vein, if the deed is transferring property that is inherited, then a title issue can arise if there is a failure to have all of the heirs sign the deed (or the absence of a court order from a probate judge). Undisclosed or missing heirs on a deed often causes a title defect.

Other deed problems can include mistakes that were made during the preparation and recording of the legal document in the real estate records (for example, an error or mistake in the legal description).

Florida Real Estate Lawyer Can Help With Title Problems

Usually, defective titles can be resolved without a lot of emotional stress even though they sometimes threaten to kill a residential real estate transaction. No one wants to learn that there is a title defect with their property while they are in the process of buying or selling their home, but having an experienced Florida real estate lawyer by their side, especially one who knows how to resolve most title problems quickly and efficiently, can be the best decision a seller, or buyer, will make as part of a real estate transaction.

Picture of Larry Tolchinsky

Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to Chat with Larry in the comments below, at, or (954) 458-8655. If you have a specific or personal situation, please call or email Larry because he can’t answer specific fact questions in general comments.



What Happens When A Buyer Discovers Condo Water Damage After Closing?

Posted By on September 22, 2015

Broker Misrepresentation Claims and “As Is” Clauses

Here in South Florida, the condominium lifestyle is very popular. That popularity extends to both retirees as well as to locals, who buy condos as primary residences, vacation homes and as investment properties. People from other countries also flock to South Florida’s condo haven because of our near perfect weather, our great food and to be a part of our ever evolving melting pot of people.

However, the allure of South Florida doesn’t mean that potential buyers should not be aware of their obligation to investigate, before closing, any condominium they intend to buy to make sure that everything is okay with the property. This is especially true with Florida’s humid climate. Since we are located  between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, mold can be a real problem here. Also, with all of our rain it is a must to closely inspect doors, roofs, and windows for water leaks and other water related issues.

Water damage can be an easy repair or a major financial expense. It can even become a health hazard (mold) if left undiscovered for a long enough period of time.
FEMA - 24781 - Photograph by Andrea Booher taken on 10-23-2005 in Louisiana


Buyers of Florida condos should also know that there are Florida laws in place that protects them from hidden defects (defects that the seller knew about or should have know about) like water leaks and other water related issues. Buyers should also know that any claim they may have not only extends to the seller but also extends to the real estate agent and their real estate broker. See, Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1985) and Florida Statute 689.261.

What Happens If There Is An “As Is” Sales Agreement?

Selling a condo “as is” does not protect the seller against a water damage hidden defect claim, as the buyers learned in the case of Syvrud v. Today Real Estate, Inc., 858 So.2d 1125, 1130 (Fla.App. 2003).

Here, a beautiful Florida condo was sold by Mr. & Mrs. Cummings to Mr. & Mrs. Syvrud in the Nature’s Watch condo development located in Pinellas County, Florida. The buyers and the sellers signed a written agreement for the sale and purchase of the property. They used the 2001 form agreement that was created and approved by both the Florida Bar Association (the group that regulates Florida lawyers), and the real estate professionals’ organization, the Florida Association of Realtors. (The form real estate agreement is known as a “FAR/BAR Contract.”)

However, the FAR/BAR Contract didn’t include all of the terms of their agreement. The parties added additional terms to the standard language. They did this in an Addendum to the agreement, which they had typed up and they all signed. The key to the addendum was that they made the transaction into an “as is” purchase.

Notwithstanding the fact the property was being purchased as it, the buyers did receive a Disclosure Statement from the sellers, but it did not reveal any hidden defects much less anything else that might materially affect the condo. After the deal was closed, the buyers discovered mildew damage; damage from leaking water; cracks in the structure of the condo itself; and other structural defects. These defects weren’t limited to this single condo unit; they were massive and impacted lots of the units.

It ended up that the buyers were facing condominium assessments of $20,000+ per condo unit due to these hidden defects. This was a serious problem.

And, it was a problem that the buyers alleged the sellers and the brokers knew about before the buyers closed the transaction. The buyers provided evidence that included 6 letters that were sent over a period of several months and almost a year before the closing date. The letters were sent to the condo owners by the condo association. They went into detail about the problems in the condominium project. They discussed the condo association expending money to do things like hire an architect, a contractor, an engineer, a roofing consulting. They also went into detail on how the unit owners were going to be facing huge assessments because of the repairs that had to be done due to the water damage.

Result: There was plenty of evidence that revealed these weren’t defects that the seller wasn’t aware of – same for the real estate professionals. They were hidden defects only to the buyers until after the deal closed and they had taken title to the property.

Did the Buyers Sue the Sellers and the Real Estate Brokers?

Of course they did. The buyers sued the listing broker; the selling broker; and the sellers for damages based upon breach of contract and misrepresentation of the condition of the condo prior to closing.

The court held that the addendum to the contract did NOT relieve ReMax as the Listing Broker from the duty to let the buyers know about the mold. The seller’s broker and the sellers also had a legal duty to reveal the water damage to the buyers.

Furthermore, did the typed addendum that was added to the sales contract help the seller and the real estate sales people? The court found that the language was an attempt to create an “as is” contract; the sellers wanted the buyers to purchase the property with the risk that there may be problems with the property which the buyer will have to handle on their own.

However, as the court pointed out, there can be no waiver of the legal duty to reveal hidden defects in a residential property to buyers in Florida. This issue had already been decided in the case of Johnson v. Davis.

The addendum failed as a matter of law to prevent the sellers from selling it “as is” to an unknowing buyer and it failed to allow the seller to escape the financial burden of the water damage.  The bottom line: “as is” doesn’t mean you don’t have to disclose.

Are You a Victim of Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

If you have been the victim of misrepresentation involving hidden defects by a Seller, a Florida real estate broker or real estate agent, then you may have a claim for damages available to you under Florida law. An experienced Florida real estate attorney, like Larry Tolchinsky, can investigate the facts and talk with the parties involved, including reviewing the contract, the disclosure statement, and the closing documents, to determine if a settlement is likely or whether it will be necessary to file a lawsuit to get you the justice you deserve.

Picture of Larry Tolchinsky

Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to Chat with Larry in the comments below, at, or (954) 458-8655. If you have a specific or personal situation, please call or email Larry because he can’t answer specific fact questions in general comments.

What Is A Florida Lis Pendens?

Posted By on September 15, 2015

One big surprise that often appears in the chain of title to real property that is being sold here in Florida (condos, townhouses, and single family residences) is a “Notice Of Lis Pendens.”  Unfortunately, the discovery of one of these notices, in many instances, catches just as many sellers off-guard as they do prospective buyers.

Regardless of who is surprised more, the discovery of this Notice in the public records is a major issue, and can slow down or even halt a real estate closing.


What is a Notice of Lis Pendens?

A Notice of Lis Pendens is an official legal document filed in the public records of the county where the land is located notifying the world there is a claim against the subject property.  The Florida Legislature passed laws that govern the requirements of where this document is filed and what must be specified in the notice, including things like names of the parties involved and the relief being sought.  (For details in what is required in a Florida Notice of Lis Pendens, read Florida Statute 48.23.)

The notice acts to provide formal notice to anyone wanting to buy real estate in the State of Florida, as well as anyone wanting to place a lien (encumbrance) on the property, that “a suit [has been] filed that could affect title in [that] property.” Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So.2d 491, 492 (Fla.1993).

Finding a Notice of Lis Pendens in a title search raises a red flag that there are legal disputes being asserted against that must be cleared in order for the seller to convey the property in a condition required by most standard Florida real estate sales contracts.

There are several ways of dissolving the notice but the important thing for purposes of completing a transaction is making sure the title has been cleared of the cloud created by the notice.  This can be done by the seller paying off the lien or by court order, which includes language that “dissolves” the Lis Pendens. Whatever way the notice is dissolved, a document must be recorded in the public records indicating that the notice has been nullified.

The Case of the Heirs, the Multi-Million Dollar Settlement Agreement, and Star Island

Consider the case of Von Mitschke-Collande v. Kramer, 869 So. 2d 1246, 1250 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2004),  where a Notice of Lis Pendens was protecting title to Miami Beach property on Star Island and two heirs successfully reversed a trial court judge’s order dissolving a lis pendens notice — but not before they jumped lots of hurdles.

In this case, Verena and Claudia were heirs to a wealthy man named Siegfried Otto. Mr. Otto was not from Florida; he was someone who had investment property here. The story began when Mr. Otto decided to have his daughter’s husband invest for him.

He entrusted $145,000,000 with his son-in-law, Thomas Kramer, to control and invest the money.

However, things didn’t go well for father-in-law and son-in-law. Four years later, Siegfried Otto wanted his money back.

Ultimately, they negotiated a settlement contract between them where Thomas was to provide his father-in-law with a complete accounting of all the money Siegfried had entrusted with him; and he was also to return all the assets back to Siegfried.

That meant that Seigfried Otto was to get 20 Million Deutsch Marks from Thomas Kramer immediately; Kramer was to sign over all real estate holdings in Florida, and/or pay Siegfried the reasonable value of the properties; and he was to pay back any money that he had used “for private purposes.”

(We don’t know how much of the millions of dollars Kramer had used for these “private purposes” … but that sure gives a hint for why Mr. Otto changed his mind, right?)

Before this could be done, but after the contract was signed, Thomas Kramer sued Siegfried Otto in Switzerland. In that lawsuit, he sought to nullify or void the settlement contract. Otto counter-sued to enforce the deal.

At this point, Siegfried Otto passed away. The lawsuit was ongoing. So his two heirs, Verena von Mitschke-Collande and Claudia Miller-Otto, became substituted parties in the Switzerland litigation.

They won in the Swiss lawsuit. Kramer appealed the result in a Swiss appeals court.

The heirs, Verena and Claudia, then came to Miami, Florida, and filed a lawsuit here in a Florida court to force Kramer to return all the Florida assets per the settlement contract. This was because two parcels on Star Island were part of the settlement deal that Kramer was to return to Otto. The heirs filed Notices of Lis Pendens in the real property records for the Star Island real estate at the same time that they filed their Miami lawsuit.

In doing so, they blocked sale of the Star Island real estate. But Kramer was wily. When the heirs’ first lawsuit was dismissed by the Florida trial judge and they were in the process of appealing his ruling, Thomas Kramer sold the two parcels on Star Island to “Skipworth Properties, Ltd.”

Verena and Claudia challenged the sale, claiming that Skipworth Properties, Ltd., was owned by Kramer. He was just manipulating things.

The Florida appeals court reversed the trial court’s dismissal order and authorized the two heirs to proceed with their case. Kramer moved for the lis pendens to be removed from the record, arguing it had been dissolved when the action had been dismissed earlier. He lost.

The Florida appeals court found that the heirs legally established a “fair nexus” between their legal or equitable ownership of the Star Island tracts and the lawsuit and the Notice of Lis Pendens would not be dissolved. Now, the Notice of Lis Pendens would block clear title to the property until the heirs of Seigfried Otto and Thomas Kramer finalized the litigation about the settlement contract and its provisions demanding that Kramer sign over the Star Island real estate.

Florida Notice of Lis Pendens Problem?

If you have discovered a lis pendens notice was filed against your home, or the property you want to buy has a notice in the chain of title, it’s a good idea to talk with an experienced Florida real estate lawyer about the impact a notice can have on the property. Most real estate lawyers, like our office, offer a free initial consultation.

Picture of Larry Tolchinsky

Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to Chat with Larry in the comments below, at, or (954) 458-8655. If you have a specific or personal situation, please call or email Larry because he can’t answer specific fact questions in general comments.


Is it Fraudulent Misrepresentation When the Real Estate Broker Hides Fact that Mother in Law is the Buyer?

Posted By on September 8, 2015

Real Estate Professionals Acting Badly —

Fraudulent misrepresentation involves a broker or agent knowingly providing misinformation to a buyer or seller that is relied upon by them to their harm or detriment.

What is a Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

These are false statements that are intentionally made in order to get a transaction closed and a commission paid. Depending upon who got hurt by the agent’s conduct, Florida law is well settled that the agent is liable for their fraudulent misrepresentations.  See Young v. Johnson, 538 So.2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

How does someone hurt by a real estate professional’s fraudulent conduct get help? The injured party can demand their damages be paid by the wrongdoer (or the agent’s insurance company) and, if necessary, the injured party can sue the real estate professional for money damages in a civil lawsuit. The injured party can also complain to the Florida Department of Professional Regulation, which oversees the licensure of Florida real estate professionals, and file a complaint which can result in discipline (even loss of license) of the broker or agent.



Florida Real Estate Sales Documents Don’t Reveal That Broker’s Mother in Law is Buyer

In the case of Santaniello v. Dept. Of Prof. Reg./Bd. Of Real Estate, 432 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983), a Florida real estate broker named Bernard Santaniello contacted Mr. and Mrs. Long in a letter written on his brokerage stationery. The Longs did not contact a broker; he wrote to them. In his letter, the broker inquired if they might be interested in selling two real estate lots that they owned in Port Charlotte, Florida.

Enclosed with his letter was a sales contract showing the proposed sales price for each lot ($1200) and his proposed commission of 10% of the sales price or $120, whichever was greater. The documents explained that he would be earning that commission through his “professional services.”

Here’s the kicker: the broker had already found the Longs a possible buyer! Identified in the documents was a prospective buyer named Anni Czaplinski.

She had already signed on the dotted line, she was ready to close the transaction. All the Sellers had to do was sign the paperwork, and voila! The deal was done.

What a sweet surprise in the mailbox, right? Well, the Longs thought not so much. They declined Mr. Santaniello’s proposed agreement because they thought their lots were worth more than what he was suggesting. And they apparently thought there was something fishy in all this. The Longs investigated.

At some point, they discovered that the buyer was the mother of the broker’s wife. At no time did the broker tell the Longs that Anni Czaplinski was his wife’s mother.

Are Damages An Element of a Misrepresentation Claim?

Here’s the good news. Because the couple was smart enough not to sign on the dotted line of the contract that they received from the broker, the property was never sold. Thus, they were not financially harmed.

In a fraudulent misrepresentation lawsuit, a key element to the claim is being able to prove damages. A plaintiff must show that he or she relied upon the material misrepresentation and was hurt by doing so.

Fortunately for the Longs, they were not financially harmed because they didn’t sell the lots; therefore, they could not receive compensation for their claim against the broker. But that didn’t mean that the real estate broker didn’t commit fraud for failing to disclose the fact that the buyer was his mother in law.

Can A Real Estate Professional Be Fined For Their Bad Acts?

A case was filed with the Florida licensing authorities (The Florida Real Estate Commission) that oversee the activities of real estate professionals. At the hearing, it was held that the fact the proposed buyer was the mother in law of the broker was a “material fact” that the sellers had a legal right to know; therefore, the broker had violated Florida Statutes 475.25(1)(b)(1979) and would be fined.

That law provides a broker will be disciplined when he is found “… fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction.”

The broker then appealed the Commission’s determination to the Florida appeals court. He lost there as well. Even though the sellers were smart enough not to be victims of fraudulent misrepresentation, it doesn’t mean that the broker is going to go unpunished.

In Florida, real estate professionals have to reveal all facts within their knowledge that might be considered material to the deal by the parties they represent. They must reveal anything that “might reasonably be expected to influence the complete loyalty of the [broker]…. ” MacGregor v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 99 So.2d 709 (Fla. 1958).

According to the Florida appeals court, and the Florida licensing board, the broker had a duty to the Longs and the fact that the proposed buyer was his wife’s mother was a material fact that should have been shared with them in his proposal. It was fraudulent conduct not to do so.

Are You a Victim of Fraudulent Misrepresentation?

If you or a loved one has been the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation by a broker or agent, then you may legal claims against them to assert. Are you suspicious of a real estate broker or agent’s activities or conduct?

Do you have facts that support all the elements of a misrepresentation claim? Unlike the Longs, did you sell your property only then to discover something fishy? Getting help from an experienced Florida real estate attorney to investigate the situation as well as negotiating on your behalf, and filing a lawsuit if necessary, may be what is needed in order for you to get justice.

Picture of Larry Tolchinsky

Do you have questions or comments? Then please feel free to Chat with Larry in the comments below, at, or (954) 458-8655. If you have a specific or personal situation, please call or email Larry because he can’t answer specific fact questions in general comments.