Addison v. Carballosa
2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18314
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- Addision and defendants formed a business venture in Modern Nature Rugs, Inc.
- Addison signed a three-page Compensation Agreement on July 26, 2006 after receipt and review; terms were clear and in English.
- He had a full and fair opportunity to read the agreement before signing; no concealment of terms by defendants.
- The purported misrepresentation alleged in the complaint was that the Compensation Agreement was the same as the Ownership Agreement emailed June 19, 2006; plaintiffs later admitted they were not identical.
- Addison’s deposition contradicted the complaint: the June 19 document was not signed, the terms were renegotiated, and he knew the June 26 document differed; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Addison failed to show a triable issue of fraudulent inducement under applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper for fraudulent inducement. | Addison contends the defendants induced signing of a contract not reflecting the agreed ownership terms. | Defendants show the documents were different and the changes were visible; reliance was not justified. | Yes; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether Addison's sworn testimony defeats the pleadings on fraud. | Complaint alleges misrepresentation to induce signing. | Sworn deposition contradicts complaint; issues must match pleadings for summary judgment. | Yes; sworn testimony defeats the fraud claim. |
| Had Addison shown justifiable reliance despite obvious discrepancies? | Reliance on misrepresentation to sign the Compensation Agreement. | Discrepancies and opportunity to read negate justifiable reliance. | No; reliance not justifiable as a matter of law. |
| Is the reliance analysis governed by M/I Schottenstein and Besett line of cases? | Views on reliance should support fraud claim. | Law supports no action where misrepresentation is obvious or readily discoverable. | Court followed M/I Schottenstein/Besett line to affirm. |
| Should the court have allowed amendment of the complaint to align with sworn testimony? | Amendment could cure inconsistencies. | No viable allegations remain after sworn admissions; no triable issue. | Not necessary; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Assad v. Mendell, 550 So.2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (pleadings frame the issues for summary judgment)
- M/I Schottenstein Homes, Inc. v. Azam, 813 So.2d 91 (Fla. 2002) (claims require justifiable reliance; if reliance is unlawful as a matter of law, no fraud action)
- Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla. 1980) (if falsity is clearly obvious, no action may lie)
- Wasser v. Sasoni, 652 So.2d 411 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (negligent purchaser cannot rely on obvious misrepresentation)
- Hall v. Burger King Corp., 912 F.Supp. 1509 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (unreasonable reliance where terms plainly contradict representation)
- Parham v. E. Bay Raceway, 442 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (duty to read; signing without reading generally not a defense)
- Pepple v. Rogers, 140 So. 205 (Fla. 1932) (party bears burden to learn and understand contract contents)