Prieto v. Smook, Inc., 97 So. 3d 916

Manor Development, Inc. and Prieto signed a $175,000 promissory note with Smook on June 23, 2006; Prieto was Manor's president.
The note carried an apparent 30% annual interest rate; an addendum on July 27, 2007 reduced it to 18% per year, compounded monthly, retroactive to the note date.
Smook later acknowledged the usurious rate in a letter, but Manor defaulted on repayment, leading to suit.
Smook alleged fraudulent inducement by Prieto, asserting he falsely claimed legal knowledge and that 30% was lawful and that repayment would occur.
Trial court held Prieto personally liable for fraudulent inducement; Manor's liability for breach of contract was affirmed, Prieto's liability reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prieto's liability for fraudulent inducement	Prieto made false statements about a legal rate and repayment.	No false statements by Prieto; only a promise to pay, not fraud.	Prieto's fraudulent inducement liability reversed.
Manor's liability for breach of contract	Manor liable under the contract for loan terms and default.	Manor's contract liability stands on the written agreement and conduct.	Affirmed as to Manor's liability.

Crawford Resd., LLC v. Banco Popular N. Am., 88 So.3d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (evidentiary support standard for trial court findings)
Shakespeare Found., Inc. v. Jackson, 61 So.3d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (fraudulent inducement elements and reliance standard)
Rose v. ADT Sec. Sers., Inc., 989 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (fraudulent misrepresentation elements)
Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (promises to perform may constitute fraud if no intent to perform)
Biscayne Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Guarantee Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 903 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (mere unperformed promise generally not actionable fraud)
Gemini Investors III, L.P. v. Nunez, 78 So.3d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (definitive standard for fraudulent inducement elements)