Case ID: so2d_426/html/0065-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHARP, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David PINZL and Diana Pinzl, Appellants, v. Donald LAPOINTE and Deliah Lapointe, Appellees.
    No. 82-658.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Feb. 2, 1983.
    
      Edward A. Broyles, Forest City, for appellants.
    Mark 0. Cooper of Bornstein, Petree, Brooks, Cooper & Marks, Orlando, for ap-pellees.
   SHARP, Judge.

We reverse this judgment which dismissed appellants’ amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action in fraud or misrepresentation. The lower court ruled that, because the complaint alleged the appellants knew of a discrepancy between the accountant’s figures on gross income and the appellees’ figures, as a matter of law they waived their claim against appellees. Reliance on misrepresentations and a duty to inquire are usually determinations for the trier of fact. Here the complaint further alleged that the appellants were repeatedly assured that the ap-pellees’ figures on gross income were correct — not the accountant’s. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and this cause remanded.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DAUKSCH, J., and BROWNLEE, JACKSON 0., Associate Judge, concur. 
      
      . See, e.g., Regnvall v. Sayle, 45 So.2d 674 (Fla.1950); Butts v. Dragstrem, 349 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Cath-Art Products Co., Inc. v. Bornman, 260 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972); Gonzalez v. Patane, 234 So.2d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Warner v. Harris Miami Beach, Inc., 219 So.2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969).