CopyCited 22 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86193, 2007 WL 4127628
...Scott,
871 So.2d 906, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reliance is a necessary element of claims for both fraud and negligent misrepresentation). Likewise, reasonable reliance is an element of Plaintiffs' claim against Santa Maria for false advertising in Count VI. See Fla. Stat. §
718.506(1) ("Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials, including, but not limited...
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Gentry-Hunt and the Stones also allege several state law claims against Harborage. Both Gentry-Hunt and the Stones allege that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. §
501.204(1) by making false representations in the Site Plan. Gentry-Hunt, but not the Stones, also filed a claim alleging that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. §
718.506 by publishing false and misleading information in the Site Plan....
...pply in this case, and because Harborage conceded it did not provide a property report as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(1)(B) and (c), the district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on this claim. 2. Florida Condominium Act, Fla. Stat. § 718.506 In Gentry-Hunt's summary judgment motion, they contended that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506 by publishing false and misleading information in the Site Plan....
...They argued that the Site Plan presented an untrue statement of material fact because it misled purchasers to believe that an area marked "Future Development" was vacant land when, in fact, it contained an operating business and a storage facility. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Gentry-Hunt on this § 718.506 claim. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the Stones under § 718.506 even though the Stones never asserted such a claim in their complaint....
...For the violations of the ILSFDA under 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(1)(B) and (c), the court awarded Plaintiffs the return of their deposits as equitable relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1709. Plaintiffs were also awarded attorneys' fees and costs under § 1709(c). The court noted that Fla. Stat. § 718.506 provided an alternative basis for Gentry-Hunt's recovery of their deposit....
...concluding that Harborage failed to show that it is exempt under 15 U.S.C. § 1702(a)(2) and (b)(1) from the requirements of the ILSFDA; (2) whether the court erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their claims asserted under Fla. Stat. § 718.506; (3) whether the court erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their claims asserted under 15 U.S.C....
...de the report violates the ILSFDA. We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on their claim that Harborage violated § 1703(a)(1)(B) and (c). B. Violation of the Florida Condominium Act, Fla. Stat. § 718.506 Florida law prohibits the publication of false and misleading information by condominium developers. Under Fla. Stat. § 718.506, a purchaser can sue to rescind a contract or collect damages from a developer when induced to enter a purchase contract by false or misleading promotional materials: Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or in...
...anything of value toward the purchase of a condominium parcel located in this state shall have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer for his or her loss prior to the closing of the transaction.... Fla. Stat. § 718.506(1). The district court found that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506 by publishing false and misleading information in the Site Plan....
...tract by false or misleading promotional materials, the district court found that the misrepresentations in the Site Plan were enough to make Harborage liable to Plaintiffs under this Florida statute. Id. at 1255. Harborage argues that Gentry-Hunt's § 718.506 claims are barred because the purchase agreements themselves disclaimed reliance on extra-contractual materials....
...tations and omissions concerning the "Future Development" area. We agree with the court's conclusion. And, because the purchase agreements failed to dispel the Site Plan's misrepresentations, the district court correctly held that Harborage violated § 718.506. Though the district court correctly determined that Harborage violated § 718.506, the court's analysis is written as if Harborage violated § 718.506 for both Gentry-Hunt and the Stones. However, only Gentry-Hunt filed a § 718.506 claim *1261 against Harborage based on the Site Plan. The Stones admit that, to the extent that the district court's ruling implies that the Stones filed a § 718.506 claim, it is in error. (Dkt. 138 at 4-5.) We therefore conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Stones under § 718.506. We affirm the grant of summary judgment to Gentry-Hunt on the § 718.506 claim....
...§ 1703(a)(1)(B) and (c) by failing to provide a property report. We affirm the court's award of damages and attorney's fees on this claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1709. We affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Gentry-Hunt on the claim that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506. We vacate the judgment in favor of the Stones on the § 718.506 claim....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 63408
...ta course promised by the defendant developers. Klinger v. Zaremba Fla. Co.,
502 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), rev. denied,
513 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 1987). This court further granted the plaintiff unit owners' motion for appellate attorney's fees under Section
718.506(2), Florida Statutes (1987), and remanded the cause to the trial court to set the amount of the fees; the orders under review were entered in compliance with our attorney's fee order....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28301, 2009 WL 689714
...upon entering into the Purchase Agreements. [1] Plaintiffs' claims originally included: (1) violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ("ILSFDA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.; (2) publication of false and misleading information under §
718.506, Florida Statutes; (3) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") under §
501.204(1), Florida Statutes; (4) breach of contract; (5) declaratory judgment; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) fraudulent misrepresentation....
...Furthermore, although there may be disagreement as to how Gentry and Hunt, as co-owners, may or may not use the facility, this dispute does not rise to the level of cognizable claim under the FDUTPA. C. Publication of False and Misleading Information Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants violated § 718.506, Florida Statutes, by publishing false and misleading information. Section 718.506, states, in relevant part: Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials,...
...g, pays anything of value toward the purchase of a condominium parcel located in this state shall *1258 have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer for his or her loss prior to the closing of the transaction. § 718.506(1), Fla....
...hures for the Condominium, are void and have no effect. Buyer agrees that Buyer has not relied on them. Purchase Agreements, ¶ 39. The Purchase Agreements also state that "[n]othing herein shall be deemed to deny or abridge the rights granted under Section 718.506, Florida Statutes." Purchase Agreements, ¶ 14....
...has concluded are puffery are not actionable here. For the reasons stated in Section III(A)(3) of this Order, Harborage's representations of the "Future Development" area constitute the publication of false and misleading information for purposes of § 718.506....
...Absent a term in the Purchase Agreement establishing specific rights and obligations concerning the use of the "Future Development" area, the Purchase Agreements fail to dispel the concept site plan's misrepresentation and omission. Therefore, Harborage violated § 718.506 by publishing false and misleading information that was used in advertising and promotional material. There is, however, an issue of material fact concerning the damages to which Plaintiffs are entitled. For the reasons stated in Section III(B)(2) of this Order, Northside has not violated § 718.506....
...The motion is GRANTED with respect to the liability portion of all FDUTPA claims against Harborage, DENIED as to corresponding damages, and DENIED as to all FDUTPA claims against Northside. The motion is GRANTED with respect to the liability portion of all claims against Harborage under § 718.506, Florida Statutes, DENIED as to corresponding damages and rescission, and DENIED with respect to all such claims against Northside....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 2287, 2009 WL 2581712
...§ 77e); Count III: Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (Fla.Stat.Chap. 517); Count IV: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. §
718.202); Count V: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. §
718.503); Count VI: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. §
718.506); Count VII: Florida Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2146986
...(Lennar), appeals a declaratory statement issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Division), ruling that a mandatory arbitration provision in a condominium purchase and sale agreement is prohibited by sections
718.111(3),
718.303 and
718.506, Florida Statutes (2002), and that the arbitration language in Lennar's agreement is void as against public policy....
...between Lennar and a condominium purchaser be resolved by binding arbitration. [1] Pursuant to section *52
120.565(1), Lennar filed a petition for declaratory statement seeking the opinion of the Division as to whether §§
718.111(3),
718.303, and
718.506, Florida Statutes, or any other provision of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes, prohibit a mandatory and binding arbitration provision requiring mandatory and binding mediation and arbitration of disputes between a purchaser and condominium developer in a purchase agreement for a condominium unit ......
...After reviewing the disputed binding arbitration language in Lennar's purchase contract, the Division ruled that it exceeded and contradicted the prescribed statutory remedies and was void as against public policy. Generally, sections
718.111(3),
718.303 and
718.506 grant a condominium purchaser causes of action for rescission or damages against a developer for the publication of false and misleading disclosures in any sales materials, authorize the condominium association or unit owner to file actions for damages or for injunctive relief or both, and grant the associations the power to bring an action on behalf of unit owners concerning matters of common interest. Further, sections
718.303(1) and
718.506(2) provide that the prevailing party in such actions is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees....
...As to the first of the two reasons given for reversal, the majority, in my judgment, mischaracterizes the Division's dispositive ruling, which addressed only the developer's petition asking for an interpretation of whether sections
718.111(3),
718.303, and
718.506, Florida Statutes (2002), prohibit certain provisions in its proposed contract requiring mandatory mediation and binding arbitration of disputes between a purchaser of a condominium unit and the developer....
...t is DECLARED that Lennar's proposed declaration of condominium or purchaser contract may not contain the proposed mandatory mediation and binding arbitration provisions because these provisions are inconsistent with sections
718.111(3),
718.303 and
718.506, Florida Statutes, and therefore, prohibited by section
718.104(4)(m), Florida Statutes....
...sue or be sued with respect to the exercise or nonexercise of its powers." Section
718.303, pertaining to obligations of owners, authorizes a unit owner who prevails in any action with an association to recover reasonable attorney fees "as determined by the court." Section
718.506, precluding the developer from publishing false and misleading information, provides an aggrieved person "a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer." In support of its conclusion that the Division...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...developed pursuant to Section
718.403, Florida Statutes (1979), brought an action to enjoin the developers from constructing phases III and IV other than as shown in the original prospectus. They also sought to rescind pursuant to the provisions of Section
718.506, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...Adiv Holding Company,
202 So.2d 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Daniels v. Lake Pleasant Land Company, Inc.,
193 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967); Dade County v. Trombly,
102 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). As to the allegedly misleading advertisements and the rights under Section
718.506, Florida Statutes (1979), it is clear from the record that the advertising was not misleading at the time it was made and as aforesaid, the documents and the statutes permitted a change in Units III and IV, therefore no merit is found in claims under this statute....
...The unit owners, claiming that these alterations were not in "substantial compliance" with the plans on file, brought an action to enjoin the developers from constructing McArthur Park. They also sought to rescind their contracts pursuant to the provisions of section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1979)....
...In this appeal the unit owners contend that the special master incorrectly found that the development of McArthur Park and the elimination of the *1254 jogging path and VITA course were not a substantial deviation from the original plan. We are persuaded that there is merit in the unit owners' claims under section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1979), that they were misled by the developers' advertisements showing recreational areas as part of the condominium community, and that the elimination of the recreational facilities was, contrary to the special master's findings, substantial noncompliance....
...3d DCA 1974), an opinion of this court, supports the unit owners' position. In Aaronson we held that the condominium purchasers' complaint should not have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action under section 711.24(3), Florida Statutes (1973), the predecessor of section 718.506, because the purchasers should have been told that an extra apartment unit could be substituted for the advertised recreational area....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1963
...e benefit of the condominium and required parking, in representing that he would provide more parking spaces than he actually provided, and in not providing the parking space[s] required by the Naples zoning ordinances. Count II sought damages under section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1983), relating to publication of false and misleading information....
...5th DCA 1983); Cheek v. McGowan Electric Supply Co.,
404 So.2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority v. Alderman,
238 So.2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). In the present case, there is no question that appellants' claim for damages under section
718.506 is triable by jury, and that their constructive trust claim is generally triable by the court....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
...exhibits to prospective purchasers, in violation of Florida Condominium Act §
718.503. • Count X — Mona Lisa made material misrepresentations in advertising material for the purchase of a condominium, in violation of the Florida Condominium Act §
718.506....
...summary judgment, which cited three cases for the proposition that any reduction or elimination of amenities is a material and adverse change. 233 The Court rejected all three. Two of the cases were *633 decided under another statute — Fla. Stat. § 718.506 . 234 One of these cases, Gentry, at most stands for the proposition that, assuming their falsity, numerous alleged misrepresentations could amount to a material misrepresentation under Fla. Stat. § 718.506 . In that case, the court merely held that such allegations were enough to survive a motion to dismiss. 235 The second case decided under Fla. Stat. § 718.506 , Klinger, 236 held that the elimination of an outdoor jogging path and VITA course was “substantial noncompliance” with the planned development scheme....
...ce of a potential problem, and plaintiffs lost their rights to void their contracts on this basis. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to Count IX. Mona Lisa Made No Materially False or Misleading Representations (Count X) Florida Statute § 718.506 provides condominium purchasers a cause of action for rescission of a condominium purchase agreement when a purchaser reasonably relies on any false material statement by a developer. To state a cause of action for rescission under Fla. Stat. § 718.506 , a party must establish: (1) a false or misleading statement; (2) the *635 statement was published in promotional materials; (3) the statement was material; and (4) reliance on the statement was reasonable....
...In Count XI, plaintiffs have alleged per se violations of FDUTPA based on the alleged violations of ILSFDA (Counts I-IV), § 77e of the 1933 Securities Act (Count V), Fla. Stat. § 517 (Count VI), Fla. Stats. §§
718.202 (Count VII),
718.502(Count VIII)
718.503 (Count IX),
718.506 (Count X)....
...s to which factual disputes exist. Other Predicate Acts (Count XI) Plaintiffs also have alleged predicate violations under the 1933 Securities Act, Florida Chapter 517, and the Florida Condominium Act, Fla. Stat. §§
718.202 ,
718.503,
718.504, and
718.506....
...Therefore, no per se violation exists for which plaintiffs can bring a FDUTPA claim under §
718.502. Second, in accordance with the Court’s rulings above, plaintiffs cannot establish a predicate violation under the 1933 Securities Act, Florida Chapter 517, or Fla. Stats. §§
718.503,
718.506....
...§ 77a); Count III: Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act ( Fla. Stat. § 517.01 et seq.); Count IV: Florida Condominium Act ( Fla. Stat. §
718.202 ); Count V: Florida Condominium Act ( Fla. Stat. §
718.503 ); Count VI: Florida Condominium Act ( Fla. Stat. §
718.506 ); *597 Count VII: Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( Fla....
...”). . The Court disagrees with Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II Inc.,
2011 WL 3204256 to the extent it required the plaintiffs to allege prejudice. . Bruce,
445 So.2d at 380 ("We are doubtful as to the cause of action for statutory rescission [under section
718.506] where there is absolutely no demonstration that the plaintifPpurchaser was even slightly prejudiced by the technical statutory noncompli- *628 anee of the seller.”); Beach Place Joint Venture v....
...v. Rosewin Coats, Inc.,
374 So.2d 618, 619 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1979). . Id. . Kaufman v. Swire Pacific Holdings, Inc.,
675 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1152 (S.D.Fla.2009). . Mona Lisa,
436 B.R. at 205 . . Although neither the statute nor Florida case law under §
718.506 provide any guidance on the issue of what constitutes a "false” or "misleading” statement, courts generally find that similar statutes require that the rep-resentor knew or should have known the statement was false or misleading at the time it was made....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48541, 2010 WL 342256
...5). Plaintiff is also seeking attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes §
718.125. Count V seeks rescission and the return of her deposit because of Developer's false and misleading statements violated her rights under Florida Statutes §
718.506(1). Plaintiff is also seeking attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes §
718.506(2)....
...n of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Section 502.201 et seq., Florida Statutes, arguing that it fails to state a claim. Plaintiff seemingly claims that Developer ipso facto violated FDUTPA by violating the ILSFDA and Fla. Stat. § 718.506, as alleged in Counts I through V....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77917, 2013 WL 2363233
...Count XVII, which allows for rescission of a contract procured through a “material statement of information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials.” Fla. Stat. § 718.506 ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118673, 2009 WL 4932716
...ow with Defendant's agent in accordance with two residential condominium purchase agreements entered into on or about February 11, 2005; (b) collect damages under Chapter 501 of the Florida Statutes; (c) rescind the Agreements under Florida Statutes
718.506,718.503 and
720.401; (d) collect damages and/or rescind the Agreements based on fraud in the inducement; and (e) obtain equitable relief, including without limitation, common law rescission....
...Defendant contends that since the sales materials accurately described the apartments, and the as-built surveys confirmed that the apartments were built as promised, Counts I and IV for rescission should fail as a matter of law. In Florida in order to state a cause of action for rescission under Fla. Stat. *1152 718.506, a party must establish (1) a false or misleading statement; (2) the statement is published in promotional materials, (3) the statement was material; and (4) reasonable reliance on the statement....
...Based upon the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, combined with the plain language in the agreements, the Court finds Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate reasonable reliance and therefore, unable to plead a sufficient cause of action for fraud in the inducement, or rescission under Fla. Stat. § 718.506....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 2010 WL 3359527
...§ 77e); Count III: Florida Securities and Investor Protection Act (Fla.Stat. Chap. 517); Count IV: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. §
718.202); Count V: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. §
718.503); Count VI: Florida Condominium Act (Fla.Stat. §
718.506); *188 Count VII: Florida Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla.Stat....
...ective. Plaintiffs have cited three cases they contend support the proposition that any reduction or elimination of amenities is a material and adverse change. [104] In fact, none does. Two of the cases were decided under another statuteFla. Stat. § 718.506. [105] One of these cases, Gentry, at most stands for the proposition that, assuming their falsity, numerous alleged misrepresentations could amount to a material misrepresentation under Fla.Stat. § 718.506. In that case, the court merely held that such allegations were enough to survive a motion to dismiss. [106] The second case decided under Fla.Stat. § 718.506, Klinger, [107] held that the elimination of an outdoor jogging path and VITA course was "substantial noncompliance" with the planned development scheme....
...Haberman's affidavit, the changes made buying a unit more attractive to a reasonable buyer. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on Count V. MONA LISA MADE NO MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION IN VIOLATION OF FLORIDA STATUTE § 718.506 (COUNT VI). Florida Statute § 718.506 provides condominium purchasers a cause of action for rescission of a condominium purchase agreement when a purchaser reasonably relies on any false material statement by a developer. To state a cause of action for rescission under Fla.Stat. § 718.506, a party must establish: (1) a false or misleading statement; (2) the statement was published in promotional materials; (3) the statement was material; and (4) reliance on the statement was reasonable....
...deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices, is a per se violation of FDUTPA. In Count VII, plaintiffs have alleged per se violations of FDUTPA based on the alleged violations of ILSFDA, the 1933 Securities Act, and Florida Statutes §§
718.503,
718.506,
718.202, and
190.048....
...annot establish a predicate act upon which to base a per se violation of FDUTPA. [127] First, in accordance with the Court's rulings above, plaintiffs cannot establish a predicate act under ILSFDA, the 1933 Securities Act, Fla.Stats. §§
718.503 or
718.506 because the Court has held that Mona Lisa has not violated any of these statutes....
...ger than as-built; and (5) the amount of monthly condominium owners association and hotel amenities unit fees would be lower than as charged. Amended Complaint, Doc. No. 10, ¶¶ 159-180. [119] Although neither the statute nor Florida case law under § 718.506 provide any guidance on the issue of what constitutes a "false" or "misleading" statement, courts generally find that similar statutes require that the representor knew or should have known the statement was false or misleading at the time it was made....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...t
Harborage. Both Gentry-Hunt and the Stones allege that Harborage violated Fla. Stat.
§
501.204(1) by making false representations in the Site Plan. Gentry-Hunt, but not
the Stones, also filed a claim alleging that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. §
718.506 by
1
Gentry-Hunt also sued Northside Marina Venture, LLC (“Northside”)....
...7
Harborage conceded it did not provide a property report as required by 15 U.S.C. §
1703(a)(1)(B) and (c), the district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on
this claim.
2. Florida Condominium Act, Fla. Stat. § 718.506
In Gentry-Hunt’s summary judgment motion, they contended that Harborage
violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506 by publishing false and misleading information in the
Site Plan....
...fact because it misled purchasers to believe that an area marked “Future
Development” was vacant land when, in fact, it contained an operating business and
a storage facility. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Gentry-
Hunt on this § 718.506 claim. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of
the Stones under § 718.506 even though the Stones never asserted such a claim in
their complaint.
3....
...For the violations of the ILSFDA under 15 U.S.C. § 1703(a)(1)(B)
and (c), the court awarded Plaintiffs the return of their deposits as equitable relief
under 15 U.S.C. § 1709. Plaintiffs were also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs under
§ 1709(c). The court noted that Fla. Stat. § 718.506 provided an alternative basis for
Gentry-Hunt’s recovery of their deposit.
II....
...erred in concluding that Harborage failed to show that it is exempt under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1702(a)(2) and (b)(1) from the requirements of the ILSFDA; (2) whether the court
erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs on their claims asserted under Fla.
Stat. § 718.506; (3) whether the court erred in granting summary judgment to
Plaintiffs on their claims asserted under 15 U.S.C....
...ort
violates the ILSFDA. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on their claim that Harborage violated §
1703(a)(1)(B) and (c).
B. Violation of the Florida Condominium Act, Fla. Stat. § 718.506
Florida law prohibits the publication of false and misleading information by
condominium developers. Under Fla. Stat. § 718.506, a purchaser can sue to rescind
5
Harborage’s corporate representative explained in his deposition that Marin County, unlike
most jurisdictions, would not issue a certificate of occupancy for individual units within a b...
...value toward the purchase of a condominium parcel located in this state
shall have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages
from the developer for his or her loss prior to the closing of the
transaction . . . .
Fla. Stat. § 718.506(1).
The district court found that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506 by
publishing false and misleading information in the Site Plan....
...21
materials, the district court found that the misrepresentations in the Site Plan were
enough to make Harborage liable to Plaintiffs under this Florida statute. Id. at 1255.
Harborage argues that Gentry-Hunt’s § 718.506 claims are barred because the
purchase agreements themselves disclaimed reliance on extra-contractual materials.
Harborage cites cases that stand for the proposition that there can be no recovery for
reliance on a misrepresentation that is expressly contradicted in a later contract....
...misrepresentations and omissions concerning the “Future Development” area. We
agree with the court’s conclusion. And, because the purchase agreements failed to
dispel the Site Plan’s misrepresentations, the district court correctly held that
Harborage violated § 718.506.
Though the district court correctly determined that Harborage violated §
718.506, the court’s analysis is written as if Harborage violated § 718.506 for both
Gentry-Hunt and the Stones. However, only Gentry-Hunt filed a § 718.506 claim
against Harborage based on the Site Plan. The Stones admit that, to the extent that
the district court’s ruling implies that the Stones filed a § 718.506 claim, it is in error.
22
(Dkt. 138 at 4-5.) We therefore conclude that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment to the Stones under § 718.506. We affirm the grant of summary
judgment to Gentry-Hunt on the § 718.506 claim.
C....
...§ 1703(a)(1)(B) and (c)
by failing to provide a property report. We affirm the court’s award of damages and
attorney’s fees on this claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1709.
We affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Gentry-Hunt on the claim
that Harborage violated Fla. Stat. § 718.506. We vacate the judgment in favor of the
Stones on the § 718.506 claim.
We vacate the grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs on the claim
that Harborage violated the anti-fraud provision of the ILSFDA, 15 U.S.C....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93549
...for violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ( see, e.g., Doc. 1 at 16, ¶¶ 100-108). Other claims, which are apparently asserted by only some Plaintiffs but not others, are predicated on violations of FLA. STAT. §§
718.503 and
718.506, fraud, breach of contract, negligence, defective title, breach of fiduciary duty, and securities fraud (Doc....
...Plaintiffs do not address the argument in their Response. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count 1 will be granted as unopposed and Count 1 will be dismissed with prejudice. Count 2 Count 2 purports to state a claim pursuant to FLA. STAT. § 718.506, which provides, in pertinent part: Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and promotional materials ... shall have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer .... FLA. STAT. § 718.506(1)....
...Although the Complaint clearly states that Plaintiffs, after "relying on Secret Lake's false and misleading documents ... purchased and closed on their respective units" (Doc. 1 at 15, ¶ 98), Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' failure to include *1228 the word "reasonable," as used in Section 718.506(1), necessitates dismissal....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15832, 2010 WL 4103349
...Count one of the amended complaint alleged that the developer had violated the antifraud provision of the Florida Condominium Act by publishing false and misleading information. The statute provides protection for condominium purchasers as follows: 718.506 Publication of false and misleading information. (1) Any person who, in reasonable reliance upon any material statement or information that is false or misleading and published by or under authority from the developer in advertising and pro...
...rtising, pays anything of value toward the purchase of a condominium parcel located in this state shall have a cause of action to rescind the contract or collect damages from the developer for his or her loss prior to the closing of the transaction. § 718.506(1), Fla....
...As a result of these misleading publications by Defendant MIAMI RIVER, LLC, the Plaintiffs have a cause of action to rescind the contracts or collect damages from Defendant MIAMI RIVER, LLC for its losses prior to the closing of the transaction, pursuant to Florida Statutes § 718.506(1)....
...The only way that buyers could know what they were buying was by looking at the information provided by the developer. Paragraph 42 contains promises of future action. What paragraph 42 cannot and does not do, however, is eliminate the buyer's protection in cases of fraud. Section 718.506 is a remedial statute....
...Had the developer done so, the plaintiffs would have been granted leave to amend. Because the developer has not challenged the legal sufficiency of the fraud allegations, for present purposes it must be assumed that the elements of a cause of action under section 718.506 have been sufficiently alleged....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2418, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10669
PER CURIAM. We affirm the final judgment of the trial court which ordered, pursuant to section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1985), rescission of plaintiffs’ contract to purchase a condominium from defendant. In addition, because the statutory remedy granted provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, § 718.506(2), Fla.Stat. (1985), we reverse that portion of the final judgment denying plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees under section 718.506(2)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110
awarded below were reasonable and authorized by Section 718.-506(2), Florida Statutes (1981). See Pfohl v.
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...each of contract,
alleging that Parque Towers breached the purchase agreements by failing
to deliver the completed units by December 31, 2017. Four of the five
complaints also sought recission of the agreements due to fraudulent
inducement under section 718.506(1), Florida Statutes, claiming that Parque
Towers deceptively represented the units as being 2,500 square feet when
the actual units delivered were under 2,000 square feet....
...While we hold that no per se breach
occurred by failing to meet the estimated closing date, and therefore the
failure to close within 20 days of the breach letters triggered no legal
7
However, the trial court properly rejected the Purchasers’ statutory
claims under section 718.506(1), Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 11607
...Suit was eventually brought by the purchasers when they were unable to qualify for a mortgage at the rate agreed to by the parties. The purchasers sued in a complaint sounding in breach of contract, fraud, rescission, and conversion. The complaint was later amended to add a further count for statutory rescission pursuant to Section 718.506, Florida Statutes (1981), for failure to include certain statements under the Condominium Act....
