Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Jennifer Van Bergen v. Scott T. Koppel, DPM (fladistctapp, 2019-08-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jennifer Van Bergen v. Scott T. Koppel, DPM
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Yasir v. Forman, 199 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sao v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
P’hip, 50 So.3d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bock v. Marchese Services, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
A court can seldom determine the presence or absence of fraud without a trial or evidentiary proceeding.” (internal citations omitted)); Robinson v. Weiland, 936 So.2d 777, 778-81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that where appellant made allegations of fraud, the trial court erred by summarily denying appellant’s motion to re-open a trial to determine entitlement to proceeds of annuities purchased by the decedent); Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that where there were allegations of fraudulent conduct, the trial court erred “by not conducting an evidentiary…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. Weiland
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
This court and others have held that if a party files a motion pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(3), pleads fraud or misrepresentation with particularity, and shows how that fraud or misrepresentation affected the judgment, the trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the motion should be granted. [7] See Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); St.
cited Cited "see" Palacio v. Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd. Partnership
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Marjon v. Lane
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Johnson v. Johnson, 738 So.2d 508, 510 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citing Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)); see also Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that when a moving party’s allegations sufficiently request relief under rule 1.540(b)(3), a full evidentiary hearing should be granted to determine under the entire circumstances whether misrepresentation or fraudulent conduct occurred).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hembd v. Dauria
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Corp. v. Breen, 684 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Estate of Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Davenport v. Dimitrijevic
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Corp. v. Breen, 684 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); see also Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Estate of Willis v. Gaffney, 677 So.2d 949, 951 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Robert C. SEAL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Eunice Christensen, et al., Appellant,
v.
Gary BROWN and Lanie Brown, Appellees.
1D00-4670, 1D00-4746.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec 17, 2001.
801 So. 2d 993
Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 47%

[*994] Paul H. Amundsen and Julia E. Smith of Amundsen, Moore & Torpy, Tallahassee, Attorneys for Appellant.

Russell D. Gautier and L. Lee Williams of Williams, Gautier, Gwynn & DeLoach, P.A., Tallahassee, Attorneys for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated cases appeal an Order Denying Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order Allowing Sale of Real Property and a Final Summary Judgment denying rescission of a contract for sale of real and personal property owned by Everett and Eunice Christensen ("sellers") in Wakulla County, Florida. The underlying facts of both cases are identical. Appellants claim that Appellees knew at the time of closing that the now deceased sellers lacked capacity, that Appellees purchased the property significantly below its appraised value, Appellees exerted undue influence on the sellers and, as a result, the sale should be rescinded and/or vacated because of Appellees' alleged actual or constructive fraud. We reverse and remand both cases for further proceedings.

In the rescission case, the trial court erred in entering Final Summary Judgment, finding it was undisputed that Everett Christensen, individually and as guardian for Eunice Christensen, understood the transaction at the time of closing. Reviewing the circumstances surrounding the closing, disputed issues of material fact exist concerning whether Everett Christensen understood the transaction and whether Appellees knew or should have known of any lack of capacity on his part, including whether Appellees were aware of pending guardianship proceedings in Thomas County, Georgia, where the Christensens lived. Accordingly, we reverse the Final Summary Judgment, and remand for further proceedings. See Jones v. Dirs. Guild of Am., Inc., 584 So.2d 1057, 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("if the record raises the slightest doubt that material issues could be present, that doubt must be resolved against the movant and the motion for summary judgment must be denied").

The trial court also erred by not conducting an evidentiary hearing before entering the Order Denying Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Order Allowing Sale of[*995] Real Property. See Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("where a moving party's allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required"). A full evidentiary hearing should have been granted to enable the trial court to determine whether, under the entire circumstances, the motion to vacate should have been granted based on any misrepresentations or fraudulent conduct of Appellees, who were parties to the transaction at issue. See Ramey v. Thomas, 382 So.2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 389 So.2d 1116 (Fla.1980).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.