Moriber v. Dreiling
2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 424, 2016 WL 145968, 194 So. 3d 369 (2016)
Rule of Law:
In Florida, a party cannot, as a matter of law, establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement by relying on statements or omissions made by an adversary during settlement negotiations when the parties have an adversarial and hostile relationship.
Facts:
- In 1993, Albert Dreiling (father of Ms. Moriber, husband of Leatrice Dreiling 'Decedent') died, establishing trusts for his wife and children and naming Decedent, Ms. Moriber, and Judy Lease as co-trustees.
- In 1995, Decedent created the Dreiling Family Irrevocable Trust ('Trust #2'), naming Ms. Moriber, Michael Dreiling, and Judy Lease as co-trustees.
- Simultaneously in 1995, the co-trustees of Trust #2 and Dreiling Medical Management Corporation (DMM) entered into a Split-Dollar Agreement, under which DMM would pay premiums for three $1,500,000 life insurance policies on Decedent, with Trust #2 owning the policies and proceeds to be distributed equally to co-trustees upon Decedent’s death after DMM was reimbursed.
- In 1996, disputes arose between Ms. Moriber and Decedent, leading Decedent to sever business and financial relationships with Ms. Moriber and direct her other children to cease communication about family financial matters.
- In 1997, Decedent caused DMM to stop paying premiums for the life insurance policies without notifying Ms. Moriber, and DMM realized the policies' cash surrender value.
- From 1998 through 2000, Ms. Moriber and her counsel repeatedly demanded accountings and information regarding various trusts and DMM, specifically questioning the status of the life insurance policies, and Ms. Moriber's lawyer expressed concerns about evasiveness from Decedent's counsel.
- In 2000, Ms. Moriber and Decedent negotiated a Settlement Agreement to resolve their disputes, under which Ms. Moriber received cash, her one-third interest in the life insurance policies, and a pro rata share of DMM’s interest in the Split-Dollar Agreement, in exchange for her DMM shares, resignation from trusteeships, and a release of claims.
- Upon Decedent's death in February 2009, Ms. Moriber was informed in September 2009 that the life insurance policies had been cancelled 12 years earlier, which she claimed was her first notice.
- The relationship between Ms. Moriber and Decedent was consistently described as 'hostile and antagonistic,' marked by Ms. Moriber being 'frozen out' of family information and DMM access, and numerous unanswered demands for information prior to the settlement.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1999, Ms. Moriber instituted litigation in Florida’s Seventeenth and Eleventh Judicial Circuits (Broward and Miami-Dade County Circuit Courts) against Decedent and Judy Lease, in their capacities as co-trustees, claiming exclusion from duties and denial of information.
- In October 2009, Ms. Moriber filed the instant action against Decedent’s Estate in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida (trial court), asserting four counts: breach of the Split-Dollar Agreement, conversion, fraudulent inducement, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
- On December 21, 2012, the trial court entered a final summary judgment against Ms. Moriber on all counts, finding, among other grounds, that she could not have relied on Decedent’s representations and that her claims were barred by a release and the statute of limitations.
- Ms. Moriber (appellant/cross-appellee) appealed the trial court’s summary judgment on her fraud claims to the Third District Court of Appeal.
- The Estate (appellees/cross-appellants) cross-appealed the trial court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees.
- The Third District Court of Appeal consolidated the two appeals for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party have a legal right to rely on representations made by an adversary during settlement negotiations, particularly when the parties have a hostile and antagonistic relationship, for the purpose of establishing a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or inducement?
Opinions:
Majority - Scales, J.
No, a party does not have a legal right to rely on an adversary’s representations during settlement negotiations when the parties are engaged in a hostile and antagonistic relationship. The court affirmed the trial court’s final summary judgment, holding that Ms. Moriber could not, as a matter of law, have relied upon any representations or omissions made by the Decedent regarding the life insurance policies, thereby precluding her fraud claims. The court based its reasoning on the long-standing legal principle established in Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co., 116 Fla. 464 (Fla. 1934), and its progeny. This principle states that when parties are in hostile relations and dealing 'at arm’s length,' they have no right to rely on each other’s representations, especially when there is reason to doubt the truth of such statements or when an adversary is obviously interested in misleading them. The court clarified that while Butler v. Yusem, 44 So. 3d 102 (Fla. 2010), determined that 'justifiable reliance' is not always an essential element of fraud, it did not recede from the common-sense principle that adverse parties negotiating a settlement cannot rely upon each other’s representations. The court emphasized that the relationship between Ms. Moriber and the Decedent was 'hostile and antagonistic' at the time of the alleged reliance, characterized by family dissension, Decedent excluding Ms. Moriber from DMM and family information, and Ms. Moriber’s repeated, unanswered demands for accountings and documentation, which even led her lawyer to note evasiveness from Decedent’s counsel. Furthermore, Ms. Moriber herself had contemplated the possibility that the policies were no longer in force and had directed her lawyer to inquire about their status. Despite this awareness and the lack of requested documentation, Ms. Moriber chose to enter into the Settlement Agreement without insisting on confirmation of the policies’ status or inserting protective terms. Consequently, the court found that Ms. Moriber failed to establish a prima facie case for fraud, as the essential element of reliance was legally absent given the adversarial context.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the well-established Florida legal doctrine that parties engaged in adversarial settlement negotiations generally cannot succeed on fraud claims based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions by their opponent. It clarifies that the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Butler v. Yusem did not erode the 'no reliance on adversaries' rule rooted in Columbus Hotel. Future litigants must recognize the high bar for proving reliance in hostile contexts and prioritize contractual safeguards, warranties, and independent due diligence over trusting an opponent's representations during settlement. The ruling emphasizes personal responsibility for protecting one's interests when dealing with an antagonist, highlighting that choosing to settle without full information or contractual protection precludes later fraud claims.
