Lewis v. Kranz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 26, 1992

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1992-05-26

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 2000

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The issue of fraud is not ordinarily a proper subject for summary judgment because, being a subtle matter, fraud requires a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to permit a determination whether they collectively constitute fraud, and for that reason such determination is seldom one that can be made in a legally sufficient manner without a trial.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 771 So. 2d 62 - Soler v. Secondary Holdings, Inc.

Relies on 384 So. 2d 1341 - Nessim v. DeLoache · 296 So. 2d 657 - Karnegis v. Oakes · Minor v. Shuford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-05-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This case is controlled by principles enunciated in Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), where we held that the issue of fraud is not ordinarily a proper subject for summary judgment because, being a subtle matter, proving the cause of action may require a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to permit a determination whether they collectively constitute fraud. It is not established conclusively in the record that the appellee Kranz, as an agent of the defrauding principal, was not a participant in a conspiracy to defraud. See Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 450 (Fla.1975).

¶2Reversed and remanded.