Butler v. Yusem

Robert T. Butler seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Yusem v. Butler (Butler III), 10 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with our decision in Butler v. Yusem (Butler II), 3 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 2009), and our decision in Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002), regarding the proper application of the tipsy coachman doctrine. We also conclude that the decision of the Fourth District, which holds that failure to establish justifiable reliance is a bar to recovery based on fraudulent misrepresentation, conflicts with the opinions of this Court in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985), and Besett v. Basnett, 389 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 1980). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.