FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT MARCH 19, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13305 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 0 0 9 1 - CV- KLR P H I L I P A . Z L O T N I C K , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s P R E M I E R S A L E S G R O U P , I N C ., B O Y N T O N W A T E R W A Y S I N V E S T M E N T A S S O C I A T E S , L L C , P A N T H E R R E A L E S T A T E P A R T N E R S , I N C ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 19, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

P la in tif f P h ilip A . Z lo tn ic k a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rd is m is s in g h is su i tag ai n stP rem i er S al es G ro u p , In c. (“ P rem i er”), B o yn t o n W at erw ays I n v e s tm e n t A s s o c ia te s , L L C ( “B o y n to n W a te r w a y s ” ) , a n d P a n th e rR e a l E s ta te P a r tne r s , I nc . ( “ P a nthe r ” ) , f i l e d pur s ua ntt o the F l or i da D e c e pt i ve a nd U nf a i rT r a de P r a c t i c e s Ac t( “ F DU T P A” ) , F l a . S t a t . An n . § § 5 0 1 . 2 0 1 - . 2 1 3 . Af t e rr e v i e w, we a f f i r m th e d i s mi s s a l o f

Zl o tn i c k ’ s c o mp l a i n tf

o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. I . B AC KG RO UN D O n F e brua r y 23, 2005, Z l otni c k, a c i t i z e n of M a r y l a nd, s i gne d a r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e ntw i th B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s , a c i t i z e n of F l or i da , f

ora uni ti n a c ondom i ni um c om pl e x t o be bui l ti n B oy nt on B e a c h, F l or i da . T he r e s e r va t i on agre em entprov i ded t hatpaym entof a $15 , 00 0 res ervat i on depo si t“ expres se s P urchas er ’ s i nt er es ti n p urchas i ng U ni tN o. 20 7N (the ‘ U ni t ’ ) i n t he prop osed c ondom i ni um . . . a ta pur c ha s e pr i c e of $310, 000. ” T he r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt th e n s ta te d th a t B o y n to n W a te r w a y s “a s s u r e s th a t th e f o r e g o in g p u r c h a s e p r ic e w ill be the pur c ha s e pr i c e i n the c ontr a c tf orthe s a l e a nd pur c ha s e of the U ni t( the

“ C on tra ct ”) subm i t t ed t o P urchas er . ” T h e reserv at i o n ag reem en tal so g av e b o th Z l o tn i ck an d B o yn t o n W at erw ays the opt i on of

c a nc e l i ng the a gr e e m e nta ta ny t i m e pr i ort o e nt e r i ng a pur c ha s i ng co n tract , as fo l l o w s:3

P urchas erm ay ca ncel thi s R es ervat i on A gree m entby no t i fy i ng S el l er or the E sc row A genti n a si gn ed w ri t i ng atany t i m e bef ore P urchas er si gn s the [purchase cont ra ct ] . . . . B ef ore bot h P urchas erand S el l er s ig n a n d d e liv e rth e [ p u r c h a s e c o n tr a c t], S e lle rm a y c a n c e l th is A gree m entfor a ny re as on w hat soever , by gi vi ng w ri t t en no t i ce the r e of t o P ur c ha s e ra nd E s c r ow A ge nt , i n w hi c h e ve ntthe R e s e r va t i on D e pos i t , t oge the rw i th a ny i nt e r e s tthe r e on, s ha l l be r e tur ne d t o P ur c ha s e r , a nd the r e a f t e rP ur c ha s e rs ha l l ha ve no c l a i m of a n y k in d a g a in s t S e lle r . M or e ove r , the a gr e e m e nts t a t e s , “ P ur c ha s e rr e c ogni z e s tha tthi s R e s e r va t i on A gr e e m e nti s a r e s e r va t i on s ol e l y w i th r e s pe c tt o a pr opos e d c ondom i ni um ; a nd, a c c or di ngl y , thi s R e s e r va t i on A gr e e m e nti s nota n a gr e e m e ntt o s e l l the U ni t , nor do es i tconfer any l i en up on or i nt er es ti n t he U ni tor on the prop osed C o n d o m in iu m p r o p e r ty .” Z lo tn ic k p a id th e r e s e r v a tio n d e p o s it, w h ic h w a s h e ld in e s c r o w in a c c or da nc e w i th the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt ’ s t e r m s . O n M a y 2, 2005, the c ontr a c t s a dm i ni s tr a t orf orthe c ondom i ni um c om pl e x s uppl i e d Z l otni c k w i th a c o p y o f th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t a n d in d ic a te d th a t th e p u r c h a s e c o n tr a c ts w o u ld b e c o m p le te d b y e a r ly J u n e 2 0 0 5 . O n D e c e m be r22, 2005, B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s s e ntZ l otni c k a l e t t e rs t a t i ng th a t b e c a u s e o f

“m e te o r ic in c r e a s e s in c o n s tru c tio n c o s ts . . . . in ta n d e m w ith w o r s e n in g la b o ra n d m a te r ia l s h o r ta g e s r e s u ltin g f r o m H u r r ic a n e s K a tr in a , R ita a nd W i l m a , ” B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s c oul d notbui l d the c ondom i ni um de ve l opm e nt4

a t th e o r ig in a l r e s e r v a tio n p r ic e s . A s a r e s u lt, B o y n to n W a te r w a y s c a n c e le d a ll re se rvat i on agre em ent s, i ncl ud i ng Z l ot ni ck’ s, and returned al l depo si t s. T he l ett er s t a t e d, “ e f

f e c t i ve a s of

the da t e he r e of

, y ourA gr e e m e nti s he r e by t e r m i na t e d a nd is d e e m e d n u ll a n d v o id .” O n January 6, 20 06 , B oynt on W at erw ay s s entZ l ot ni ck anot her l ett er anno un ci ng the re op eni ng of the cond om i ni um sa l es ce nt er . T he l ett eri nd i ca t ed thatZ l ot ni ck had an excl usi ve t en-day w i nd ow t o p urchas e the sa m e uni the had pr e vi ous l y r e s e r ve d a tthe pr i c e of $370, 000, a $60, 000 pr i c e i nc r e a s e ove rthe a m ounts e ti n the 2005 r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt . Z l otni c k a l l e ge s tha tB oy nt on W a te r w a y s s e n t s im ila rle tte r s to a ll p r e v io u s r e s e r v a tio n h o ld e r s f o rth e 3 1 8 u n its a tthe c ondom i ni um c om pl e x. O n January 27 , 20 06 , Z l ot ni ck fi l ed a c l as s a ct i on com pl ai nti n federa l di stri ctcourtun der the F D U T P A on behal f of the previ ou s r es ervat i on ho l ders at th e co n d o m i n i u m co m p l ex . T h e co m p l ai n tal l eg ed th atB o yn t o n W at erw ays; P a n th e r , a F lo r id a - b a s e d r e a l e s ta te d e v e lo p m e n t c o m p a n y a f f ilia te d w ith B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s ; a nd P r e m i e r , a F l or i da - ba s e d c om pa ny tha tm a r ke t e d the cond om i ni um com pl ex, sol i ci t ed decept i ve re se rvat i on agre em ent s t o sec ure f i na nc i ng a nd the n t e r m i na t e d the r e s e rva t i on a gr e e m e nt s w i th the s ol e purpos e of r e a p in g th e b e n e f

its o f a r is in g r e a l e s ta te m a r k e t.5

B o yn t o n W at erw ays, P an th er, an d P rem i er t i m el y fi l ed m o t i o n s t o d i sm i ss f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te a c la im . A c o p y o f th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t w a s a tta c h e d to th e c o m p la in t, a n d th e p a r tie s a t th is p o in t d o n o t d is p u te th e f a c ts in th e c a s e . A f t e rhe a r i ng or a l a r gum e nt s on the m ot i ons , the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the m o tio n s to d is m is s o n M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 . S e e Z lo tn ic k v . P r e m ie rS a le s G r o u p , I n c ., 4 3 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 9 0 , 1 2 9 6 ( S .D . F la . 2 0 0 6 ) . Z l otni c k t i m e l y a ppe a l e d. I I . DI S CUS S I ON T he F D U T P A de c l a r e s tha t“ unf a i rorde c e pt i ve a c t s orpr a c t i c e s i n the c o n d u c t o f

a n y tr a d e o rc o m m e r c e ” a r e u n la w f u l. F la . S ta t. A n n . § 5 0 1 .2 0 4 ( 1 ) . P ursuantt o § 50 1. 21 1, any per son w ho has s uffe re d l osse s a s are sul tof a v io lati o n m ay co m m en ce a p riv ate a ctio n to re co v er ac tu al d am ag es , att o rn ey ’s fe es , and cost s. F l a. S t at . A nn . § 5 01 . 21 1(2). T he F l ori da S up re m e C ou rthas no t ed that“ dece pt i on occurs i f there i s are pres ent at i on , om i ss i on , or prac t i ce that i s l i ke l y t o m i s l e a d the c ons um e ra c t i ng r e a s ona bl y i n the c i r c um s t a nc e s , t o the c ons um e r ’ s de tr i m e nt . ” P N R , I nc . v. B e a c on P r op. M gm t . , I nc . , 842 S o. 2d 773, 7 7 7 (F l a. 2 0 0 3 ) (q u o t at i o n m ark s an d ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ). T h i s st an d ard req u i res a s how i ng of

“ pr oba bl e , notpos s i bl e , de c e pt i on” tha ti s “ l i ke l y t o c a us e i nj ur y t o a r e a s ona bl e r e l y i ng c ons um e r . ” M i l l e nni um C om m c ’ ns & F ul f i l l m e nt , I nc . v.We reviewde novo a district c ourt’s dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 1 a c c eptinga s tr

uea ll f a c ts s e t f or th in th eplaintif

f’ s c omp laint . Tha e ter v . Palm B e a c h Co unty Sheriff’ s Offic e, 449 F .3d 1342, 1352 (11th Cir. 2006). Th e reis n o disp utethat th ere se rv atio n agre e me nt h e resatis fi e d th eoth e r re quire me nts 2 of § 718.502(2) (c) , which states that suc h agreements must also include: (1) a state ment that the de ve lop e r m

us t f ilec on do min ium

do c uments wi th t

heDi vis ion

of F lorida L and Sa le s, Condomini ums and Mobile Homes prior to enteringa bindingpurcha sing agreement; (2) a statement of the right of

the prospec tive purcha ser to re ceiveall require d condominium

6 O ff i ce of the A t t ’ y G en. , 76 1 S o. 2d 12 56 , 12 63 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 00 ). Z l ot ni ck cl ai m s thatthe defendant s s chem ed t o ci rc um ventthe st atut ory r e qui r e m e nt s i n F l a . S t a t . A nn. § 718. 502( 2) ( c ) gove r ni ng c ondom i ni um r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt s by c a nc e l i ng the r e s e rva t i on a gr e e m e nt s a nd the n of f e r i ng th e s a me u n i t s a ta h i g h e rp r i c e . Se e Fl a . St a t . A n n . § 7 1 8 . 5 0 2 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( l i s t i n g t e r ms th atm u stb e i n cl u d ed i n reserv at i o n ag reem en t s). W e co n cl u d e th atth ese alleg atio n s d o n o t state a c laim u n d er th e F D U T P A an d af firm th e d istrict co u rt’s g ran to f th e m o t i o n s t o d i sm i ss. 1 Iti s c l ea r thatZ l ot ni ck’ s r es ervat i on agre em entm ee t s a l l st atut ory r e qui r e m e nt s unde rF l or i da l a w . T he onl y s t a tut or y pr ovi s i on a ti s s ue i s the r e qui r e m e nttha ta r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e ntm us ti nc l ude a s t a t e m e nt“ tha tthe p u r c h a s e p r ic e r e p r e s e n te d in . . . th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t w ill b e th e p r ic e in the cont ra ctfor purchase and sal e or thatthe pri ce re pres ent ed m ay be excee ded w i thi n a s t a t e d a m ount. . . ortha tno a s s ur a nc e i s gi ve n a s t o the pr i c e i n the c ontr a c tf

orpur c ha s e ors a l e . ” F l a . S t a t . A nn. § 718. 502( 2) ( c ) ( 4) . H e r e , the 2do c uments ; ( 3) thenameand a dd re ss o f t hee sc ro w ag e nt; and

(4 ) a state me nt t

hat th edepo sit must be payable to the e scrow ag ent, who must provide a rece ipt to the prospective purchaser. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 718.502( 2)(c ). 7 re se rvat i on agre em entst at es , “ [s ] el l eras sure s thatthe foregoi ng pu rc hase pri ce w ill b e th e p u r c h a s e p r ic e in th e c o n tr a c t f o rth e s a le a n d p u r c h a s e o f th e U n it . . . .” T h is s ta te m e n t a lm o s t m ir r o r s th e la n g u a g e o f F la . S ta t. A n n . § 718. 502( 2) ( c ) ( 4) . I n hi s r e pl y br i e f , Z l otni c k c onc e de s tha tthe r e s e r va t i on a g r e e m e n ts a r e v a lid . H ow ever , Z l ot ni ck ar gu es thatal tho ug h t he re se rvat i on agre em ent s m ay h a v e b e e n f

a c ia lly v a lid , th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ s c h e m e f

lo u te d th e in te n t o f

F la . S ta t. A n n . § 7 1 8 .5 0 2 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( 4 ) b y c a n c e lin g th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n ts in o r d e rto i n c r e a s e p r i c e s a b o v e th e p r i c e e s t a b l i s h e d i n th o s e i n i t i a l a g r e e m e n t s . He c o n te n d s th a t th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in g th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t w o u ld h a v e m is le d a r e a s o n a b le p u r c h a s e rin to b e lie v in g th a t th e p u r c h a s e p r ic e lis te d in the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e ntw oul d notbe c ha nge d. T h e e x p re ss term s o f th e r es er v atio n ag re em en t u n d er m in e Z lo tn ick ’s c la im , h o w e v e r . F ir s t, th e la n g u a g e o f th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t is c le a ro n its f a c e tha ti tonl y e xpr e s s e d Z l otni c k’ s “ i nt e r e s t ” i n pur c ha s i ng a s pe c i f i c uni ta nd di d notc ons t i tut e a gua r a nt e e d pur c ha s e c ontr a c t . T he r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt s t a t e d tha ti t“ i s nota n a gr e e m e ntt o s e l l the U ni t , nordoe s i tc onf e ra ny l i e n uponZ lotnick disputes whether B oy nton Waterways had any

unilateral authority

to canc el the 3 re se rv atio n agre e me nt. Z lot nic k mi sre a ds theplain l anguag eof there se rv atio n agre e me nt, wh i chexp re s s l y

grant s th e s el l er

th e o p t i o nt o can ce l“[ b ] ef o re b o thP urc h as er

an d S el l er s i gn and deliver

the Contract.”Moreover, F lorida law recognizes the right of both prospective purcha sers a

nd developers to canc el re servation agreements. See F la. Stat. Ann. § 718.502(2)( a) (re quiringthat reservation agreements notify prospec tive purcha sers of the ir right to a ref und of the re servation deposit “upon written re quest to the escrow ag ent by the prospec tive purcha ser or the deve loper”(empha sis added)) . 8 or i nt er es ti n t he U ni tor on the prop osed C on do m i ni um prop er ty. ” F urtherm ore, F l ori da court s tre atre se rvat i on agre em ent s a s m er e “ agre em ent s t o agree, ” notas bi ndi ng pur c ha s e c ontr a c t s . S e e P or t e l l I nt ’ l R e a l ty , I nc . v. J a c obs on, 802 S o. 2d 4 3 1 , 4 3 3 ( F la . D is t. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) . A dd i t i on al l y, the re se rvat i on agre em entgave B oynt on W at erw ay s a n oppor tuni ty t o “ c a nc e l thi s a gr e e m e ntf ora ny r e a s on w ha t s oe ve r ” a ta ny poi nt p r io rto e n te r in g ap u r c h a s e c o n tr a c t. W hi l e the agree m entprov i ded t hat 3 “[ s ]e lle ra s s u r e s th a t th e f o r e g o in g p u r c h a s e p r ic e w ill b e th e p u r c h a s e p r ic e in the cont ra ctfor the sa l e a nd pu rc hase of the U ni t , ” there ar e no ass urances that the pur c ha s e pr i c e w oul d r e m a i n the s a m e i f B oy nt on W a t e rw a y s c a nc e l e d the reserv at i o n ag reem en t . In l i g h to f th e b ro ad can cel l at i o n p ro v i si o n an d ex p ress t er m s i nd i ca t i ng thatthe agree m entconferre d n o i nt er es ti n t he prop osed c ondom i ni um uni t , no r e a s ona bl e pur c ha s e rw oul d be l i e ve tha tthe r e s e r va t i on agre em entse ta bi nd i ng pu rc hasi ng pri ce un l es s the agree m entw as st i l l i n eff ec t w h e n a p u r c h a s e c o n tr a c t w a s d e liv e r e d . Z l otni c k a r gue s tha tde s pi t e the pl a i n l a ngua ge i n hi s r e s e r va t i on9

agre em ent , B oynt on W at erw ay s e ng aged i n a decept i ve tra de pract i ce un der F endri ch v. R B F , L . L . C . , 84 2 S o. 2d 10 76 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 20 03 ). In F endri ch, a prospec t i ve pu rc hase r e nt er ed a r es ervat i on agre em entt o p urchas e a s pe c i f i c l ot , de s i gna t e d a s L ot10A , a ta f i r m pur c ha s e pr i c e . S e e F e ndr i c h, 842 S o. 2d a t1078. T he F e ndr i c h r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nta l s o c ont a i ne d a t e r m i na t i on op t i on , w hi ch prov i ded t hat“ P urchas erac kn ow l edges thatun t i l bo th P urchas er a n d S e lle rh a v e e x e c u te d a C o n tr a c t . . ., P u r c h a s e ris u n d e rn o o b lig a tio n to p u r c h a s e a n d S e lle ris u n d e rn o o b lig a tio n to s e ll s u c h R e s id e n c e H o m e ( s ) . T h is a gr e e m e ntc a n be t e r m i na t e d by e i the rpa r ty a ta ny t i m e , s ubj e c tt o a r e f und of P ur c ha s e r ’ s D e pos i t. . . . ” I d. I n F e ndr i c h, the s e l l e rdi d notc a nc e l the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt . I ns t e a d, w h ile th e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t in F e n d r ic h w a s s till in e f f e c t, th e s e lle ra lle g e d ly te n d e r e d a p u r c h a s e c o n tr a c t f o ra le s s d e s ir a b le h o m e , d e s ig n a te d a s L o t 2 C , a t a hi ghe rpr i c e . I d. T he F l or i da s t a t e a ppe a l s c our tc onc l ude d tha ta l though the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nts t a t e d tha ti tw a s nota pur c ha s e c ontr a c t , “ [ w ] he n the r e s e r va t i on f

or m . . . une qui voc a l l y r e pr e s e nt s tha tthe c ons um e rw i l l be gi ve n the o p p o r tu n ity to p u r c h a s e a p a r tic u la rlo t o ru n it a t a f ir m p r ic e , it c a n b e lik e ly to m is le a d .” I d . a t 1 0 8 0 . T he c i r c um s t a nc e s he r e di f f e rm a t e r i a l l y f

r om the s c he m e i n F e ndr i c h,The district cour t disti nguished Fendrich by noting that Z lotnick’s “Reser vation 4 Agreement clea

rly provides that it is not an agreement to sell a particula r unit at a fixed price , and that the purchaser has only expressed an interest in purcha sing a proposed unit.” Z lotnick, 431 F. Supp. 2d at 1295. Thereservation agreement in Fendrich contains a fix ed pric e assurance somewhat similar to the fixed price state ment in Z lotnick’s reservation agreement, which provides, “Seller

assure s that the fore g oing purchasepricewill be the purc hase price in the contra ct for thesale a

nd purcha se of the Unit . . . submi tted to Purchaser .” However, Z lotnick’s re se rv atio n agre e me nt h a s th ea dditi on a l prov isi on , mi ssingin t here se rv atio n agre e me nt in 10 how e ve r . F i r s t , Z l otni c k’ s r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nti nc l ude d a ddi t i ona l l a ngua ge em p h as izin g th at itd id n o t estab li sh a b in d in g p u rc h as e a g re em en t. Z lo tn ick ’s re se rv atio n ag re em en t p ro v id ed th at th e d ep o sit o n ly “ex p re ss es P u rc h as er ’s i nt er es ti n p urchas i ng U ni tN o. 20 7N (the ‘ U ni t ’ ), ” a nd , si gn i fi ca nt l y, further st at ed, “ thi s R es er vat i on A gree m enti s notan agree m entt o sel l the U ni t , no r does i tc onf e ra ny l i e n upon ori nt e r e s ti n the U ni toron the pr opos e d C ondom i ni um p r o p e r ty .” T h e r e s e r v a tio n a g r e e m e n t in F e n d r ic h c o n ta in e d n o te r m s s im ila rto th is f u r th e rs ta te m e n t in Z lo tn ic k ’s a g r e e m e n t. S ec on d, even tho ug h t he re se rvat i on agre em enti n F endri ch al so al l ow ed eith er th e d ev elo p ero r th e p u rc h as er to term in ate th e a g re em en t, Z lo tn ick ’s r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d the a ddi t i ona l c l a r i f i c a t i on tha ti f

B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s c a nc e l e d the a gr e e m e nt , “ the r e a f t e rP ur c ha s e rs ha l l ha ve no c l a i m of any ki nd agai nstS el l er . ” A cc ordi ng l y, Z l ot ni ck’ s r es ervat i on agre em entm ore c l e a r l y e xpr e s s e d tha ti tdi d note s t a bl i s h a bi ndi ng pur c ha s e pr i c e a nd c a r r i e d no m or e l e ga l s i gni f

i c a nc e tha n a n “ a gr e e m e ntt o a gr e e , ” thus di m i ni s hi ng the l i ke l i hood t o m i s l e a d. 4F e nd

ri c h, that “ thi s Re se rv atio n A gre e me nt i s n ot a n agre e me nt t o s e ll theUn it, no r doe s it c o n f e r any li e nu p o no r inter e s t inth eUn it

o r o nth ep ro p o s e d

Co n d o min ium p ro p e rty . ”We concludethat the additional terms contained in Z lotnick’s reservation agreement, including the no-claim provision, and Boy nton Waterways’ ca

ncellation of thereservation agreement draw even sha rper distinctions with the sche me dee med illeg al in Fendrich. 11 M osti m po rt ant l y, the re se rvat i on agre em enti n F endri ch w as st i l l i n eff ec t w hen t he devel op erfurni shed a purchase cont ra ctfor a di ff er entl otata hi gh er pr i c e , but , i n c ontr a s t , B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s c a nc e l e d i t s r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt w i th Z l otni c k a nd othe rpr os pe c t i ve pur c ha s e r s . B y a l l e ge dl y a gr e e i ng t o r e s e r ve o n e h o u s e b u t th e n o f

f e r in g a p u r c h a s e c o n tr a c t f o ra p r ic ie ra n d le s s d e s ir a b le hous e , the de ve l ope ri n F e ndr i c h c ontr a ve ne d the c l e a rt e r m s of a r e s e r va t i on agre em entthatw as st i l l i n force and t hu s e ng aged i n a “ cl as si c bai tand sw i t ch. ” I d . a t 1 0 7 9 & n .1 . I n th is c a s e , h o w e v e r , B o y n to n W a te r w a y s r e le a s e d th e “b a it” by c a nc e l i ng the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt , thus e l i m i na t i ng both the obl i ga t i ons a nd l i a b i l i t i e s o f

Bo y n t o n W a t e r w a y s a n d Zl o tn i c k , a s s p e c i f i e d i n th e e x p r e s s t e r ms o f th e a g r e e m e n t. U n lik e th e s itu a tio n in F e n d r ic h , a r e a s o n a b le p u r c h a s e rw o u ld notl i ke l y be m i s l e d i nt o be l i e vi ng tha tthe pr i c e s e ti n the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nt w as bi nd i ng beca use B oynt on W at erw ay s e xerc i se d i t s c on tra ctual ri gh tt o cancel th e a g r e e m e n t. B oy nt on W a t e r w a y s c a nc e l e d the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e ntbe f or e of f e r i ng a pur c ha s e c ontr a c t , a s i tha d the f ul l r i ghtt o do by the e xpr e s s t e r m s of the a gr e e m e nt . U pon c a nc e l l a t i on, the a gr e e m e ntpl a i nl y s t a t e s tha tZ l otni c k ha d “ noZ lotnick also claims on appeal that Boy nton Waterways improperly canc eled the 5 agreement beca

use his reservation deposit alleg edly was not re turned until months after the c anc e llatio n. It is un c le ar i f B oy nto n Wate rw ays b e ars any fa ult fo r t his a lle g e d d e lay

be c a us e there se rv atio n agre e me nt s tate s th at th ee sc ro w ag e nt, no t B oy nto n Wate rw ays, is re sp on sib le for the return of thedeposit. Reg ardle ss, this allegation was not included in Z lotnick’s complaint, and wethus do not consider this extrane ous alleg ation when weareexamining whether the complaint on its facefailed to state a claim. See B rooks v. B lue Cross & B lue Shi e ld o f F la ., Inc ., 11 6 F .3 d 1 36 4, 13 68 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 7) (n otingthat in c on sid e ringa

motion to dismiss , courts review only “the f aceof the c omplaint and attachments thereto”) . B e c a us ewec on c ludethat Z lot nic k f a ile d to statea

c laim und e r t

heF DU TPAa g a ins t 6 any pa rt y , w edo no t a dd

re ss whe ther Z lot

nic k f a ile d to statea

c laim ag a ins t Pre mier in pa rtic ula r a nd wh e ther Z lot

nic k p roperly

a lle g e d a c tual da

mag e s. 12 c l a i m of a ny ki nd a ga i ns tS e l l e r ” be c a us e the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e ntdi d not “c o n f e ra n y lie n u p o n o rin te r e s t in th e U n it.” U nde rthe s e c i r c um s t a nc e s , no 5 re as on abl e purchase r w ou l d b el i eve thata voi d res ervat i on agre em entes t abl i shed a bi nd i ng pu rc hase pri ce w hen i tw as m er el y a n “ agre em entt o agree. ” A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tZ l otni c k f a i l e d t o s t a t e a c l a i m unde rthe F D U T P A be c a us e the c a nc e l l a t i on of the r e s e r va t i on a gr e e m e nte l i m i na t e d a ny pos s i bi l i ty tha ta r e a s onabl e pur c ha s e rw oul d be m i s l e d. I I I . CONCL US I ON F orthe f or e goi ng r e a s ons , w e a f f i r m the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s di s m i s s a l of Zl o tn i c k ’ s c o mp l a i n tf

o rf a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. 6 AF F I RME D.