Moreno v. First International Title , 176 So. 3d 301 ( 2015 )

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 5, 2015.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D14-1896
Lower Tribunal No. 13-17279
________________
Victoria Moreno,
Appellant,
vs.
First International Title, Inc.,
Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto,
Judge.
Lawrence M. Shoot, for appellant.
Conroy Simberg and Hinda Klein and Elizabeth A. Izquierdo (Hollywood),
for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, C.J., and EMAS and LOGUE, JJ.
SUAREZ, C.J.
Victoria Moreno (“Moreno”) seeks to reverse a final summary judgment
granted in favor of First International Title, Inc. (“FIT”). We affirm.
Moreno purchased property that was encumbered by a variety of liens and
code violations. She had a real estate agent, and FIT was the closing agent for the
sale. Prior to the closing, Moreno had been supplied with several documents
disclosing each of the code violations and liens and indicating the amounts
necessary to cure, which amounted to approximately $64,000. On May 4, 2012,
Moreno signed a Hold Harmless document and its attached list disclosing each of
the violations and lien information relating to the property; the final closing took
place on May 24, 2012. At the closing, Moreno, her fiancé, her realtor and another
realty company employee were physically present; FIT conducted the closing
electronically as the closing agent, consistent with the terms of the purchase and
sale agreement. All the documents were provided by FIT to the realtor and to
Moreno prior to the closing.
When, months later, Miami-Dade County assessed Moreno for the
outstanding violations, she sued FIT alleging, among other claims, that as the
escrow closing agent FIT breached its fiduciary duty to clearly communicate the
allegedly “latent defects” of additions built without proper permits that affected the
value of the house. FIT moved for summary judgment.1 At the hearing on the
motion for summary judgment, Moreno acknowledged that at the closing she was
in possession of the Hold Harmless agreement as well as the Certificate of Use,
documents that explicitly disclosed the code violations. She admitted that,
1 Litigation continues against the real estate agent and the realty company.
2
although she does not speak or read English, she signed all of the documents at the
closing and made no attempt to have anyone explain the documents to her.
The record does not reflect any facts indicating fraudulent inducement to
sign, purposeful or negligent misinformation, or any other action on FIT’s part to
prevent the buyer from reading the documents and inquiring about the contents.
The code violations are clearly set forth. The trial court correctly concluded that
Moreno had opportunity to read the documents and failed to read them. The
outcome is appropriately governed by All Florida Surety Co. v. Coker, 88 So. 2d
508, 510 (Fla. 1956) (“A party to a written contract cannot defend against its
enforcement on the ground that he signed it without reading it, unless he aver facts
showing circumstances which prevented his reading the paper, or was induced by
the statements of the other parties to desist from reading it. The courts will not
ordinarily protect those who with full opportunity to do so will not protect
themselves.”). See also Alejano v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 378 So. 2d 104,
105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (holding that a party who signs his name to an instrument
cannot deny its contents on the ground that he signed it without reading it unless he
shows facts indicating circumstances which prevented his reading it); Merrill,
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Benton, 467 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA
1985) (concluding that the fact customer could not read English and her allegation
that employee of stockbrokerage firm knew that fact and did not read or explain
the document to her were insufficient to
3
invalidate the written document and to constitute a legal defense to it, where
customer did not allege or testify that stockbrokerage firm prevented her from
reading the contract or induced her to refrain from reading it or in any way
prevented her from having it read to her by a reliable person of her choice.).
Affirmed.
4