Connection lost
Server error
Follo v. Florindo Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Sellers of a bed and breakfast misrepresented its revenues to a buyer. The court upheld the fraud verdict and clarified that a finding of actual fraud inherently contains the malice required to allow a jury to consider punitive damages.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a finding of actual common-law fraud is, by itself, a sufficient basis to submit the issue of punitive damages to a jury, as the requisite malice is inherent in the tort itself.
Follo v. Florindo Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendants Paul Florindo and Susan Morency sold their bed and breakfast business, consisting of an Inn and an adjacent Cottage, to plaintiff Carl Follo for $1,245,000. During negotiations, defendants provided plaintiff with financial documents, including profit-and-loss statements and tax returns, that represented the Inn’s annual gross revenues to be over $226,000 in 2001 and $250,000 in 2002. Plaintiff relied on these figures in making his purchase decision. After the sale, plaintiff discovered the Inn’s actual revenues were substantially lower; bank deposits and official tax filings showed total sales of approximately $88,000 in 2001 and under $150,000 in 2002. Evidence at trial showed Florindo, who handled the finances, provided the inflated numbers to the real estate agent and was evasive when questioned about the discrepancies. Morency, the majority owner and president/treasurer, claimed ignorance of the finances but had signed the official tax returns, attesting to their accuracy. Her handwriting was also on guest records that contained inconsistencies. The jury found both defendants liable for common-law fraud and consumer fraud, awarding $645,000 in damages, which the trial court reduced to $295,000 via remittitur. The trial court had granted defendants’ motion to exclude punitive damages as a matter of law.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a jury finding of liability for actual common-law fraud provide a sufficient basis to require submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury?
Yes. A finding of actual common-law fraud inherently possesses the malice and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a jury finding of liability for actual common-law fraud provide a sufficient basis to require submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle in Vermont that a verdict for actual Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse ci
Legal Rule
Actual fraud is accomplished with an evil intent, and if a jury Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt
Legal Analysis
The court first affirmed the jury's verdict on common-law fraud against both Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt moll
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.