Case Name: David M. HINTON, etc., et al., Appellant, v. Charles E. BROOKS and Elizabeth E. Brooks, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-11-16
Citations: 820 So. 2d 325
Docket Number: No. 5D00-1058
Parties: David M. HINTON, etc., et al., Appellant, v. Charles E. BROOKS and Elizabeth E. Brooks, Appellees.
Judges: HARRIS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 820
Pages: 325–330

Head Matter:
David M. HINTON, etc., et al., Appellant, v. Charles E. BROOKS and Elizabeth E. Brooks, Appellees.
No. 5D00-1058.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 16, 2001.
Rehearing Denied July 8, 2002.
Robert E. Johnson of Broad & Cassel, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Samuel M. Nelson and Douglas K. Gar-tenlaub of Graham, Clark, Jones, Builder, Pratt & Marks, P.A., Winter Park, Anthony W. Palma of Broad and Cassel, and Joseph A. Frein, Orlando, for Appellees.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, C.J.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure. We reverse.
Charles and Elizabeth Brooks (sellers) sold David and Donna Hinton (buyers) a home in "as is" condition, but also agreed to disclose defects of which they were aware. The buyers discovered extensive termite damage to the home, and ceased making the purchase money mortgage payment to the sellers. In a related case, the buyers sued the sellers.
In this case, the sellers sued for foreclo* sure of the mortgage, and the defendants pleaded as affirmative defenses fraud in the inducement, unclean hands, failure of consideration, and set-off. The buyers alleged, among other things, that regarding termite activity and treatment in the previous five years, the sellers wrote in their disclosure statement "caretaker reported activity and Massy [Pest Control] treated same," when between 1992 and 1997 the home had been treated 'for infestation twelve times.
The sellers argue that the affirmative defenses are barred by the economic loss rule, characterizing the fraud allegations as ones for fraud in the performance of a contract rather than fraud in the inducement. The allegation, however, is that the sellers misled the buyers regarding the termite activity and treatment, and other matters, and that the buyers relied on the misleading information in entering the contract. These allegations are of fraud in the inducement. See HTP, Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 685 So.2d 1238 (Fla.1996); La Pesca Grande Charters, Inc. v. Moran, 704 So.2d 710 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HARRIS, J., concurs.
SAWAYA J-, concurs specially, with opinion.