9 results for 'cat:"Fraud" AND cat:"Real Estate" AND cat:"Contract"'.
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in favor of a seller in a convoluted real estate dispute. The seller, who was ordered to pay back the buyer for a property sale after it became clear that she was not in fact the owner of the property in question, has already provided “legally and factually sufficient evidence” that both she and buyer held the “mistaken belief” that she owned the property, whereas the buyer has not provided adequate evidence of fraud. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 08-23-00165-CV, Categories: fraud, real Estate, contract
J. Jewell finds that the trial court properly ruled in favor of the buyer of a property who alleged the purported owner took his money without having unencumbered title to the property. The buyer's "deemed admissions" regarding his non-compliance with the contract did not preclude his recovery on the deceptive trade practices and Property Code claims. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Jewell, Filed On: November 30, 2023, Case #: 14-22-00221-CV, Categories: fraud, real Estate, contract
J. Flanagan partially denies a property development firm’s former accountant’s motion to dismiss allegations of conversion, fraud and breach of contract brought by the firm. The firm correctly argues fraud because the accountant falsely told a member of the firm that to get tax benefits, he would need to share ownership of the firm with the accountant. Thus, they created the firm as a 50-50 partnership. Then, the accountant fraudulently acquired a home on behalf of the member without his knowledge for almost $1 million. The accountant quit the firm and refuses to return the property to the firm. The firm’s claim that the accountant breached his fiduciary duty while acting as the firm’s agent and member will proceed.
Court: USDC Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge: Flanagan, Filed On: November 21, 2023, Case #: 7:23cv1062, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: fraud, real Estate, contract
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Pratt finds the lower court improperly granted summary judgment to the brokers of a real estate purchase. The seller stipulated that the sale of her property not be to a specific broker or any of his affiliates, yet using a shell company the brokers did just that. The seller filed suit, and the lower court granted summary judgment to the brokers, finding the contracts non-reliance clause prevented the seller from making claims against the brokers. But the instant court finds that the non-reliance clause required the signatures of the brokers in order for it to be enforceable, and they did not sign it. The matter is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Pratt, Filed On: July 21, 2023, Case #: 5D22-1410, Categories: fraud, real Estate, contract
J. Pratt finds the lower court improperly granted summary judgment to the brokers of a real estate purchase. The seller stipulated that the sale of her property not be to a specific broker or any of his affiliates, yet using a shell company, the brokers did just that. The seller filed suit, and the lower court granted summary judgment to the brokers, finding the contracts non-reliance clause prevented the seller from making claims against the brokers. But the instant court finds that the non-reliance clause required the signatures of the brokers in order for it to be enforceable, and they did not sign it. The matter is remanded for further proceedings. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Pratt, Filed On: July 21, 2023, Case #: 5D22-1557, Categories: fraud, real Estate, contract
J. Williams finds that the lower court properly granted a take-nothing summary judgment against the appellant in this breach of contract and fraud case stemming from the sale of certain commercial property. The appellant, which purchased the property, contends that the extent of the defects in the parking lot were not fully disclosed. However, the lower court did not err by impliedly concluding "there was no evidence of a breach of any duty to disclose." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Williams, Filed On: May 18, 2023, Case #: 11-21-00266-CV, Categories: fraud, real Estate, contract