BLACK DIAMOND PROPERTIES, INC. v. Haines
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15169
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Florida Fifth DCA case involving Black Diamond Properties, Realty, Olsen against Haines, Masut, Howell, and Conboy over allegedly false advertising about membership interests.
- Memberships marketed as equity in Black Diamond Club, Inc., a not-for-profit with an option to purchase golf courses/facilities owned by Properties, Inc.
- Club, Inc. could exercise the option only if triggered by sale of the 750th membership; Olsen controlled pricing and board appointments.
- Plaintiffs allege they purchased memberships believing they obtained fractional ownership in the golf courses and facilities, not just in Club, Inc.’s option contract.
- Lawsuit centers on alleged false and misleading advertising under Fla. Stat. § 817.41; underlying claims involve statute of limitations and jury instructions.
- The court addressed whether certain plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred, whether equitable estoppel or continuing tort doctrine apply, and whether jury instructions on § 817.41 were correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicable statute of limitations bar | Masut, Howell, Conboy argued timely under § 817.41; Haineses timely under § 817.41; others barred. | Four non-Haines plaintiffs barred under § 95.11(3)(f) four-year limit; Haineses timely under § 817.41. | Some claims barred; Haineses' § 817.41 claim survives initial analysis but later trial error found. |
| Equitable estoppel applicability | Defendants misled plaintiffs about ownership, delaying suit. | Estoppel requires plaintiff knew of facts and delayed; here plaintiffs did not allege such reliance on fraud to delay suit. | Equitable estoppel not applicable to toll limitations; not the basis for delay in discovery. |
| Continuing tort doctrine applicability | Continuing tort tolls the statute for ongoing misrepresentation effects. | Damage-causing act completed at purchase; no continuing tort for ongoing effects. | Continuing tort doctrine inapplicable; certain claims barred. |
| Jury instruction adequacy for § 817.41 claim (Haineses) | Instruction permitted strict liability under § 817.41 for misrepresentation. | Instruction lacked requirement that misrepresentation be knowingly false; should follow fraud-in-the-inducement elements. | Jury instruction erroneous; Haineses entitled to new trial on § 817.41 claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morsani v. Major League Baseball, 739 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1999) (equitable estoppel recognized; valid to defense in limitations contexts)
- Joseph v. Liberty National Bank, 873 So.2d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (fraud-in-the-inducement elements required; reliance and detriment)
- Cook v. Deltona Corp., 753 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir. 1985) (equitable estoppel premised on defendant conduct causing delay)
- Horvath v. Delida, 540 N.W.2d 760 (Mich. App. 1995) (continuing tort concept; discrete acts not continuous harm)
- Patten v. Winderman, 965 So.2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (delayed discovery doctrine; accrual based on discovery of tortious act)
- Hearndon v. Graham, 767 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2000) (delayed discovery doctrine considerations in Florida)
- Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (discusses discovery and limitations in Florida court decisions)