Rubens v. Glinsky, 473 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Rubens v. Glinsky, 473 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Assad v. Mendell
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
In order to state a valid cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation the complaint must allege the following elements: "(a) the misrepresentation of a material fact [by the defendants] ...; (b) that the defendants knew the falsity of the representation; (c) that the defendants made the representation intending that the plaintiffs would rely on it in purchasing the house; (d) that the plaintiffs did rely on the representation in purchasing the house; and (e) that the plaintiff's [sic] reliance caused damage." Rubens v. Glinsky, 473 So.2d 20, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); see also Johnson v. Davi…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Murray RUBENS and Myrna Rubens, his wife
v.
Michael GLINSKY, Rebecca Glinsky, his wife, 163rd Street Realty, Inc. and Belle Yantz, Inc.
No. 84-1677.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jul 23, 1985.
473 So. 2d 20
Conroy, Simberg & Wilensky and Steven J. Chackman, Hollywood, for appellants., Scherman & Zelonker and Regina Zelonker, Hialeah, Abrams,. Anton, Robbins, Res-nick, Schneider & Mager and Andrew T. Lavin and Joseph Huss, Hollywood, for ap-pellees.
Baskin, Ferguson, Nesbitt.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The dismissal of the Rubenses’ complaint with regard to their fraudulent misrepresentation count is reversed. The complaint, while not a model of craftsmanship, adequately alleges the elements of a cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation by alleging: (a) the misrepresentation of a material fact (the concealment of a negative roof inspection report and the presentation of a favorable one so as to represent that the roof was in good condition); (b) that the defendants knew the falsity of the representation; (c) that the defendants made the representation intending that the plaintiffs would rely on it in purchasing the house; (d) that the plaintiffs did rely on the representation in purchasing the house; and (e) that the plaintiffs reliance caused damage. See American International Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So.2d 567, 569 (Fla.1975); Johnson v. Davis, 449 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Besett v. Basnett, 389 So.2d 995 (Fla.1980). With regard to the other count in the complaint, the order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.