Case Name: Mac KLEIN and Anne Klein, Appellants, v. Barrett M. ROTHENBERG and Samuel Feldman, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-11-26
Citations: 305 So. 2d 78
Docket Number: No. 74-892
Parties: Mac KLEIN and Anne Klein, Appellants, v. Barrett M. ROTHENBERG and Samuel Feldman, Appellees.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 305
Pages: 78–78

Head Matter:
Mac KLEIN and Anne Klein, Appellants, v. Barrett M. ROTHENBERG and Samuel Feldman, Appellees.
No. 74-892.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 26, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1975.
Stephen A. Cahen, Miami, for appellants.
Caidin, Rothenberg, Kogan & Kornblum, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The appellants were the plaintiffs in an action claiming rescission of a contract of purchase and damages for alleged fraudulent representations made by the defendants as sellers to the plaintiffs as purchasers of an interest in a restaurant business. On this appeal from a summary final judgment for the defendants, the appellants present eighteen points but their main reliance is on the proposition that ordinarily fraud is not a proper subject of summary judgment. Bryant v. Small, Fla.App.1970, 236 So.2d 150. As noted in the cited opinion, "This is not to say that there may not be unusual circumstances which will permit a summary judgment in a fraud or undue influence case, . . . " Our review of this record convinces us that the summary judgment was properly entered in this case.
The pleadings, the depositions of the plaintiffs and the affidavits on file show conclusively that (1) as to the rescission action, the plaintiffs are equitably estopped to maintain the action and (2) as to the damage claim, no actionable fraud is alleged in the complaint or particularized in the depositions or affidavits.
Affirmed.