The Return of the Pink Panther or Johnson v. Davis, Redux

In 1985, the Florida Supreme Court made a new rule for buying houses. The case involved Mr. and Mrs. Davis buying a house from Mr. and Mrs. Johnson. Before the sale was completed, the Johnsons said there were no problems with the roof, but after the sale, the Davises found out there were big leaks and it would cost $15,000 to fix. The court said that the sellers had to tell the truth about the condition of the house before selling it. The Davises sued the Johnsons for lying about the condition of their house. The court said the Davises were right and ordered the Johnsons to give back the deposit money. The court also said that sellers have to tell buyers about any hidden problems with the house, and buyers don’t have to prove the seller was trying to trick them. So, if a seller doesn’t tell you about a problem with the house, they can still get in trouble even if they didn’t mean to deceive you. Under a new legal ruling, a buyer can now sue a seller for not disclosing hidden problems with a house, even if the seller didn’t make a false statement. The seller has to tell the buyer about any important hidden issues with the house. The buyer doesn’t have to search for hidden issues on their own. But if the buyer is also careless and doesn’t look for problems, they might not be able to sue the seller. This rule is meant to make sure sellers can’t take advantage of buyers who don’t know about problems with a house. The Florida Supreme Court answered a question about whether a seller who unintentionally gave false information could be held responsible if the buyer didn’t investigate and relied on the false info. The court said that a buyer doesn’t have to investigate every piece of information, only the ones a reasonable person would investigate. This isn’t new law. The court mentioned a previous case called Johnson, which established a cause of action for not telling important information, regardless of the seller’s state of mind. The court said that negligence doesn’t apply in these cases. It’s important to note that negligence could lead to the buyer being responsible for their own loss, like in the old rule of “buyer beware.” The Fourth District Court made a mistake in comparing a nondisclosure case to a negligence case in the Billian case. They said that the jury was given the wrong instructions about what the seller had to intend when they didn’t disclose important information. The court clarified that in a nondisclosure case, it doesn’t matter what the seller’s state of mind was – whether they forgot or didn’t know, they are still responsible for not telling the buyer important things about the property.

The court said that in a case like this, the seller doesn’t have to purposely try to deceive the buyer in order to be held responsible for not telling them important information about the property they are selling. The Florida Supreme Court created a new rule that holds sellers responsible for not telling buyers about any problems with a house. This means that if a seller knows about a problem with the house, they have to tell the buyer or they could be in big trouble. This rule makes it easier for buyers to get help if they find out the seller didn’t tell them about a problem. If a seller doesn’t tell the whole truth about a problem with a house, it can be considered fraud. Even if they don’t have to disclose everything, if they choose to mention something, they have to be honest about it. Just mentioning part of the problem isn’t enough. If a seller promises to tell you everything about a house, they have to tell you the whole truth. This rule comes from a court case where the judge said that sellers have to tell everything about a house, not just some things. If a seller only tells some things and leaves out important stuff, like a history of leaks, that could be a problem. The seller should tell the buyer everything that could affect the value of the house. If they don’t, the buyer might have a case against them. If you’re buying a house “as is,” the seller still has to tell you about any important problems they know about that you can’t see. This rule doesn’t apply to buying commercial property like a big piece of land for business. The high court hasn’t decided if the rule should apply to commercial property. The courts haven’t clearly defined what counts as commercial or residential property. But the legislature says that residential property means a sale of a house with four units or less. The court also didn’t agree with the buyers’ request to cancel the contract, so they still had to buy the house, but at a lower price. It’s not clear why the court didn’t cancel the contract. If you want more information on this topic, you can read a case called Billian.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-return-of-the-pink-panther-or-johnson-v-davis-redux/