Bowman v. Barker
172 So. 3d 1013
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Buyer sued sellers Barker and Bryan after discovering numerous undisclosed, serious defects (structural damage, failing foundation, unpermitted additions) in a purchased house.
- Claims: failure to disclose known defects under Johnson v. Davis and fraudulent misrepresentation by Barker; other defendants added later for related roles in repair/inspection/ sale.
- Record included pleadings, depositions, and identical seller affidavits denying knowledge of defects; sellers moved for summary judgment relying on those affidavits.
- Buyer produced evidence contradicting sellers: sellers’ extensive real estate/house‑flipping experience, admissions about poor initial condition and need for substantial repairs, and inconsistent statements between sellers and contractors.
- Disputes existed about whether requested repairs were completed, what representations were made pre‑closing, and whether sellers relied on or directed the contractor’s scope of work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue exists on sellers’ knowledge of defects | Buyer: sellers knew of major defects; admissions and actions show knowledge | Sellers: affidavits negate knowledge; no contrary evidence | Reversed — record shows triable issues of fact on knowledge and credibility |
| Whether sellers’ affidavits bar buyer’s claim at summary judgment | Buyer: affidavits conflict with other evidence and admissions | Sellers: affidavits conclusively negate knowledge element | Reversed — affidavits create conflict and do not preclude trial |
| Whether "as‑is" sale defeats duty to disclose | Buyer: Johnson v. Davis duty still applies despite "as‑is" language | Sellers: sale "as‑is" limits liability | Reversed — duty to disclose known defects remains despite "as‑is" sale |
| Whether fraud claim against Barker was properly resolved on summary judgment | Buyer: evidence raises issues of Barker’s knowledge and intent | Barker: insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent | Reversed — fraud involves intent and factual subtleties unsuitable for summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Nat. Track Serv., Inc. v. Gilley, 152 So.3d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (standard of review and conflict created by affidavits preclude summary judgment)
- Johnson v. Davis, 480 So.2d 625 (Fla. 1985) (seller duty to disclose known defects)
- Connell v. Sledge, 306 So.2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (summary judgment is not a trial by affidavit)
- Graff v. McNeil, 322 So.2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (when defendant moves, complaint allegations are taken as true)
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (movant must show no genuine issue; draw inferences for non‑movant)
- Brock v. Assocs. Fin., Inc., 625 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (resolve doubts against moving party)
- DeMesme v. Stephenson, 498 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (opponent must show countervailing facts or inferences)
- Syvrud v. Today Real Estate, Inc., 858 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ("as‑is" sale does not eliminate duty to disclose known defects)
- Palmer v. Santa Fe Healthcare Sys., Inc., 582 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (fraud claims often inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment)
- Hermes v. Anton, 300 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (fraud requires full factual development)