06-1017 RUIZ V. WARREN HENRY

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 3d06-1017

Case Date: 02/14/2007

Plaintiff: 06-1017 RUIZ

Defendant: WARREN HENRY

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2007
Opinion filed February 7, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 06-1017
Lower Tribunal No. 05-21832

________________

Teresa M. Ruiz,
Appellant, vs.

Warren Henry Automobiles, Inc., d/b/a Land Rover North Dade,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jon I. Gordon, Judge. Scott R. McNary and David R. Bolen, for appellant. Legon Ponce & Fodiman and Todd A. Fodiman and Jeffrey A. Sudduth, for appellee. Before WELLS and CORTINAS, JJ and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge. WELLS, Judge. While we acknowledge that the amended complaint and the documents attached to it demonstrate that the automobile at issue was not leased to Teresa M.

Ruiz and that she has not, therefore, stated claims sounding in fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation or violation of FDUPTA, we agree that this case should be remanded to permit the lessee of the vehicle, Ruiz's mother, to be joined so that appropriate claim or claims may be stated. See Biscayne Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Guarantee Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 251, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)("In order to state a cause of action for fraud in the inducement, a plaintiff must allege that 1) the representor made a misrepresentation of a material fact, 2) the representor knew or should have known of the falsity of the statement, 3) the representor intended that the representation would induce another to rely and act on it, and 4) the plaintiff suffered injury in justifiable reliance on the representation"); Baggett v. Electricians Local 915 Credit Union, 620 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 2d DCA1993)("To prove negligent misrepresentation, it must be shown that (1) there was a misrepresentation of material fact; (2) the representer either knew of the misrepresentation, made the misrepresentation without knowledge of its truth or falsity, or should have known the representation was false; (3) the representer intended to induce another to act on the misrepresentation; and (4) injury resulted to a party acting in justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation.") (emphasis added);

Download 3d06-1017.pdf