Johnson v. Davis (1985)

Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985)

Legal information, not legal advice. Verify against the cited opinion.

• Citation: Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985), 10 Fla. L. Weekly 583 (decided October 31, 1985). Approving Davis v. Johnson, 449 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
• Court / Year: Supreme Court of Florida, decided October 31, 1985 (opinion by Adkins, J.).
• Topic tags: disclosure · latent-defect · caveat-emptor · rescission · fraudulent-nondisclosure
• Facts: The Davises agreed to buy the Johnsons’ three-year-old home for $310,000\ast \ast andpaida\ast \ast$5,000 deposit, followed by an additional $26,000\ast \ast deposit(totaling\ast \ast$31,000). Before the additional deposit, Mrs. Davis noticed buckling and stains around a corner of a window frame and on the kitchen ceiling and asked about them; Mr. Johnson affirmatively represented that the window had had a minor problem that was long ago corrected and that the roof and ceiling were sound and in good condition. In fact the Johnsons knew of plumbing/roof problems. After a heavy rain, the Davises returned to the house and found water gushing in from around the window frame, the ceiling, and the light fixtures. The Davises sued for rescission and return of their deposit. The trial court ordered return of the $26,000seconddepositbutlettheJohnsonskeeptheoriginal$5,000; the Third District reversed, awarding the Davises the full $31,000 plus interest, costs, and fees. The Florida Supreme Court took the case on conflict certiorari.
• Holding: The Court affirmed for the buyers and announced a rule displacing strict caveat emptor for residential real estate: “where the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” The Court held this duty “is equally applicable to all forms of real property, new and used.” A seller’s knowing failure to disclose such a defect is actionable as fraudulent nondisclosure, supporting rescission (and the return of the buyers’ full $31,000 deposit with interest, costs, and attorney’s fees). The Johnsons’ prior affirmative misrepresentations about the roof independently established fraud, but the Court went further and recognized a freestanding duty to disclose.
• Reasoning: Florida law already barred a seller from inducing a purchase by affirmative misrepresentation (misfeasance). The Court reasoned that the old common-law line letting a seller stay silent about known latent defects (treating nondisclosure / nonfeasance as non-actionable) “is not in tune with the times and does not conform with current notions of justice, equity and fair dealing.” It observed that “the tendency of the more recent cases has been to restrict rather than extend the doctrine of caveat emptor,” and adopted the modern view (joining many other jurisdictions) that knowing concealment of a material, non-observable defect is the legal equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. Justice Boyd dissented, warning the new duty would generate uncertainty and litigation.
• Practical impact for CFD operators/buyers: Johnson v. Davis is the foundation of Florida’s seller-disclosure law and is not limited to cash/conventional sales — it governs any sale of residential real property, including a contract for deed / agreement for deed, where the seller-vendor knows of a material latent defect. A Florida operator selling a house on terms cannot rely on “as-is” silence: if the operator knows of a material defect that the buyer cannot readily observe (roof, plumbing, flooding, structural, mold, prior remediation), the operator must disclose it, or face rescission of the contract plus return of the buyer’s payments, interest, and fees. The buyer’s later-developed Johnson v. Davis cause of action — actual knowledge, materiality, non-observability, and failure to disclose (the four elements stated in Jensen v. Bailey, below) — is a live exit ramp for a CFD buyer who later discovers a concealed defect. For operators this makes a written, accurate property-condition disclosure at or before contract execution the single cheapest piece of compliance insurance on a Florida deal.
• Good-law status: Good law. Johnson v. Davis remains the controlling Florida authority on a residential seller’s duty to disclose and is routinely applied. Later cases refine rather than overrule it: Jensen v. Bailey, 76 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), states the four elements a buyer must prove (seller’s actual knowledge; materiality; defect not readily observable and unknown to buyer; seller’s failure to disclose). The duty was also extended to real-estate licensees by statute, Fla. Stat. § 475.278. Courts have recognized limits at the margins — e.g., enforceable exculpatory/“as-is” or release language (cf. Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2015), on exculpatory-clause enforceability), and a narrower reach in some non-traditional transaction structures — but the core disclosure rule stands. Not overruled; not superseded by statute.
• Source (retrieved):
  • Full opinion (480 So. 2d 625): Google Scholar — https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14586619263907958570
  • Justia (480 So. 2d 625, slug 65330-0): https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/1985/65330-0.html
  • Case brief quoting “480 So.2d 625, 627 (Fla.1985)”: https://suncoastinspections.com/wp-content/uploads/Johnson-v-Davis.pdf
  • Good-law / later treatment: Jensen v. Bailey, 76 So. 3d 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (four-element test); Fla. Stat. § 475.278 (licensee disclosure duty)
  • Verified: 2026-06-08

▸ For Sellers / Operators — If you sell a Florida house on a contract for deed and you know of a material defect the buyer can’t readily see — a leaking roof, recurring flooding, plumbing or structural problems, mold, or a patched-over prior issue — Johnson v. Davis obligates you to disclose it. Silence is not a shield, and an “as-is” line will not reliably save you. The remedy a court can hand the buyer is rescission plus return of everything paid, with interest, costs, and attorney’s fees — which on a CFD means unwinding the deal and giving the money back. Make an accurate written property-condition disclosure at or before signing. See the florida page and forfeiture-vs-foreclosure.

▸ For Buyers — If a Florida seller knew of a material defect that wasn’t readily observable and didn’t tell you, you may have a Johnson v. Davis claim to rescind the contract and recover your payments. You must show the seller’s actual knowledge, that the defect materially affected value, that it wasn’t readily observable and was unknown to you, and that the seller failed to disclose it.

Jurisdictions that follow / cite: florida (controlling — disclosure duty applied to agreement-for-deed sales). Part of the national retreat from caveat emptor in residential real-estate sales.

---

Disclaimer. Legal information, not legal advice. Johnson v. Davis turns on the seller’s actual knowledge and the materiality and observability of the specific defect; outcomes vary with the facts and with later refinements such as Jensen v. Bailey. Confirm the opinion is still good law and consult a licensed Florida attorney before relying on it.