Nagashima v. Busck
541 So. 2d 783, 1989 WL 36262 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A seller's false representation that a property's existing use complies with applicable zoning ordinances can be considered a misrepresentation of fact, rather than a non-actionable misrepresentation of law, and can thus form the basis for a cause of action in fraud.
Facts:
- Kelly Hunter Busck owned a multifamily building that was operated as a triplex, with each of the three units marked by a separate number.
- The property was, in fact, zoned for a duplex (a two-unit building), not a triplex.
- Busck entered into a contract to sell the building to Hisashi Nagashima.
- The sales contract represented that the building was a 'free standing three unit building'.
- Busck also allegedly made oral representations to Nagashima that the property complied with all municipal ordinances.
- Nagashima relied on these written and oral representations when purchasing the property.
- After the purchase, Nagashima was required by the municipality to modify the structure to comply with the duplex zoning laws, incurring costs and diminishing the property's value.
Procedural Posture:
- Hisashi Nagashima (plaintiff) filed a multi-count complaint against Kelly Hunter Busck (defendant) in a Florida trial court, including counts for fraud and reformation.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that the alleged fraud was based on a non-actionable misrepresentation of law.
- Nagashima (appellant) appealed the dismissal of the fraud and reformation counts to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
- Busck is the appellee in the appeal.
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 seller's false representation to a purchaser that a property is properly zoned for its existing use state a valid cause of action for fraud?
Opinions:
Majority - Rivkind, Leonard, Associate Judge
Yes, a seller's false representation that a property is properly zoned for its existing use can state a valid cause of action for fraud. While Florida law has traditionally held that misrepresentations of law are not actionable, the seller's statements in this case were primarily misrepresentations of fact. The representation in the contract that the property was a 'three unit building,' combined with assurances of legal compliance, amounted to a factual assertion about the nature and lawful status of the property, not merely an opinion on the law. The court, while bound by precedent distinguishing fact from law, found that an unscrupulous seller should not be shielded from liability by commingling factual misrepresentations with misrepresentations of law. Therefore, the complaint properly stated a cause of action for fraud.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant judicial effort to circumvent the traditional, rigid distinction between misrepresentations of fact and law in fraud cases. By classifying a false statement about zoning compliance as a 'misrepresentation of fact,' the court allowed a fraud claim to proceed where older precedent might have barred it. The court's certification of the question to the Florida Supreme Court signals a desire to formally adopt the modern Restatement view, which largely abandons the fact/law distinction in fraud. This case serves as a bridge, protecting buyers from fraudulent sellers while operating within the constraints of existing, but potentially outdated, legal doctrine.
