HomeMy WebLinkAbout2393 -
s3 -
remainst so why would not the representations pertaining to the
lease remain?? It makes no differenc® whether the representations
were fraudulent, negligent or stupid---they still exist: Therefore,
the Motion to Amend the Pleadings is denied.
The sellers rely on Fraser v. Schoenfeld., 364 So.2d 533
(3 DCA 1978). This confidence is misplaced since in Schoenfeld the
purchaser knew of the violation of the contract prior to closing-and
went ahead with closing anyway. In the case now before the Court
the buyer knew nothing of defects in the lease: Steinberg v. Bay
Terrace Apartment Hotel, Inc., 363 So.2d (3 DCA 1978) is more in point
for the purchaser (as far as the pleadings indicate) also had no know-
ledge of-the problem defects.
Since the parties have agreed to await the .ruling of the
Court before ascertaining damages, costs, interest and attorneys fees,
this Court reserves jurisdiction for this purpose. The Court suggests
that the proper measure of damages to probably be the difference in
valuation of the property unencumbered by the lease as against the
valuation of the property encumbered by the lease as of the date of
closing.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida,
this 15th day of June, 1979.
- 1
t 7 7
}
W / / -
PHI P G. NOURSE, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
~ Ben L. Fryan, Jr., Esquire _
Vincent A. Lloyd, Esquire
J. Stephen Tierney, III, Esquire
Y
C
k
X
6
Z
-
-
n
so~~ 310 ~~:2;39i
K
=J