Judge Seitz, Maybe You Should Talk to the Florida Supreme Court

In the wake of the eminently reasonable ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that appears to acknowledge that some people just don't read so good, the WSJ revisits Judge Seitz' Lochner Era-esq ruling on condo developers saying whatever the hail they want as long as the contract says otherwise:

Last month, the U.S. District Court in Miami dismissed two dozen federal lawsuits in which buyers said they were misled by an advertising brochure promising an "Olympic style" swimming pool at Opera Tower, a high-rise condo building near downtown Miami.

Plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on the drawings or advertisements, Judge Patricia Seitz ruled. The contract clearly stated the pool was L-shaped and 2,530 square feet -- smaller than Olympic size, she wrote. The developers claimed that "Olympic style" didn't refer to the pool's size but to the fact that it would have lanes.

The decision was a big loss for consumer rights, says Miami Beach attorney Kent Harrison Robbins, who filed the lawsuits against Opera Tower. "It gives developers wide-ranging room to promise whatever they want, as long as they change it in the written contract," he says. "Honest developers will be outcompeted by dishonest ones." Mr. Robbins says he plans to appeal the decision to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

Real-estate lawyers nationally are closely monitoring the Florida lawsuits, expecting a wave of similar claims across the country as more condominium projects are completed. "The market in Florida is two years ahead of other parts of the U.S., like California or the Sunbelt states, in both the heavy downturn in prices and the lawsuits following it," says attorney Robert M. Chasnow, a partner with Holland & Knight in Washington.

Hooray, we're ahead of the curve! Kent better get this right before the 11th, or a certain Magic City Harvard Lawyer will not be muy happy:

"We are going to see a number of cases where buyers are successful, primarily in areas where something substantial was altered in the project and those that were not delivered on time," says Jared H. Beck of Beck & Lee, a law firm in Miami. "The decisions represent just a tiny sliver of the universe of grounds for buyers' claims in the ongoing litigation war between buyers and developers."

"A tiny sliver of the universe" -- a nice turn of phrase... if you're Carl Sagan. There are literally "billions and billions of grounds..."

I kid I kid -- good luck and godspeed, gentlemen.

Welcome to 1905 -- Bakers' Right to Contract Protected!

This is an old-fashioned Lochner-era beatdown:

No matter how beautiful a condominium complex looks in the brochure, it might behoove any buyer to look at the fine print in the contract based on a ruling by a federal judge.

The brochure showed a 56-story elliptical-shaped building on the water with a nearby marina. The illustration omitted surrounding high-rise buildings. The one- and two-bedroom units were priced from $200,000 to $800,000.

“It is well settled that a contracting party may not as matter of law reasonably rely upon prior written or oral misrepresentations expressly contradicted by a subsequent written agreement,” Seitz wrote in her 10-page order.

The decision is a victory for developer Tibor Hollo and may influence hundreds of similar lawsuits against other condominium builders. Most of the lawsuits aim to recover condo unit deposits under the federal Interstate Land Sales Act and the Florida False Advertising Statute.

Both laws were passed to fight fraudulent Florida swampland sales to out-of-state buyers.

Listen, our South Florida history is precious and we should all work to protect it. Who knew that includes our inglorious past bilking out-of-towners on dubious South Florida land sales? You can read the Court's order here.

It is really quite stunning the apparent view expressed here of how consumers act or make purchasing decisions in the real world. For example, although the promotional brochure used to sell the units touted an "Olympic-sized" swimming pool, the actual contract document specified a pool of exactly 2530 feet.

Also, although the brochure talked about wide vistas and panoramic views, the actual contract language says that buyers are not guaranteed any view whatsoever. Plus, although the brochure has the condo pictured immediately adjacent to the bay with a marina, the actual legal description is of a property one block away from the water. What suckers these buyers are!

Of course when 35 percent of the American public believes that Saddam was behind 9/11 and that Obama is a secret madrassa Muslim, it is perfectly reasonable for these chumps to see somewhere in their contract that 2530 feet is pretty small for a pool or that by pulling out a legal plat description it is quite obvious that their condo unit isn't anywhere near the water and has a beautiful view not of Biscayne Bay, but of Camillus House.

You'd have to be a moron to miss that.