5D07-907 KC Leisure v. Haber

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D07-907

Case Date: 01/21/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2008

KC LEISURE, INC., Appellant, v. LAWRENCE HABER, ET AL., Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 25, 2008 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Renee A. Roche, Judge. Eric A. Lanigan and Roddy B. Lanigan of Lanigan & Lanigan, PL, Winter Park, for Appellant. Mark O. Cooper, of O'Neill, Liebman & Cooper, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. Case No. 5D07-907

MONACO, J. The appellant, KC Leisure, Inc., appeals the final order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice its fourth amended complaint against the appellee, Lawrence Haber. 1 Because we conclude that the complaint stated causes of action against Mr.

We also considered other issues in this controversy in Thorpe v. Gelbwaks, 953 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

1

Haber for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), 2 and for fraudulent inducement, we reverse. This dispute involves the sale of a franchise by Relay Transportation, Inc., to KC Leisure. The franchise authorized KC Leisure to open a retail outlet in the Central Florida area for the sale and rental of electric vehicles. KC Leisure alleged that Mr. Haber was a stockholder and officer of Relay Transportation. Basically, KC Leisure asserts in its complaint that Mr. Haber and the other defendants, while acting in their capacities as corporate officers, directors and shareholders of Relay Transportation, communicated with each other both verbally and in writing about the disclosure requirements applicable to the sale of franchises to prospective purchasers. Mr. Haber is specifically alleged to have advised the other defendants in this connection and imparted information to them concerning the liabilities and penalties that might result from a failure to comply with the requirements. According to the complaint, however, Mr. Haber and the other defendants decided not to provide any of the disclosures mandated by state and federal authorities, despite knowing that the disclosures were required by law. KC Leisure further alleged that Mr. Haber and his co-defendants devised a scheme to provide KC Leisure with a "license agreement," rather than a franchise agreement, so that they could obtain a $50,000 franchise fee from KC Leisure before actually creating and handing over a Uniform Financial Offering Circular and franchise agreement. KC Leisure purportedly entered into the license agreement and paid the $50,000 franchise fee to Relay Transportation, even though none of the disclosures had been

2

Download 5D07-907 KC Leisure v. Haber.pdf