Fill and Sign the Jury Instruction 13131 General Instruction Form

13.1 Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 USC § 1709(b)) In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated a federal law known as the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, and the Plaintiff seeks an award of damages as compensation for that alleged violation. under that law a real estate developer is prohibited from using the mails, or any other means of communication in interstate commerce, for the sale or lease of lots in a "subdivision" (as that term is defined in the law), unless the developer has previously filed with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development a document known as a "statement of record," and has also furnished the purchaser, before the signing of any contract for sale or lease, another document known as a "property report." Among other information that must be given, a property report is required to specify [describe the type of information germane to the Plaintiff's claims and information required by the regulations to be included in a property report under § 1707]. In this case the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant violated the law because the property report [contained an untrue statement of a material fact] [omitted to state a material fact required to be stated in the report]. Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that [describe the alleged false statement or material omission]. There are three facts that the Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence in order to establish this claim: First: That the "property report" [contained an untrue statement of fact] [omitted to state a fact required to be stated in the report], as alleged; Second: That the [untrue statement] [omitted fact] was material; and Third: That the Plaintiff suffered damages as hereafter defined. [In the verdict form that I will explain in a moment, you will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning each of these factual issues.] If the Plaintiff proves that the property report contained [an untrue statement of material fact] [omitted to state a material fact required to be stated in the report], the Plaintiff is not required to prove that the Defendant intended to make it or that the Defendant even knew of it. The Plaintiff is only required to prove that the Defendant made [the untrue statement] [omission]. A [statement] [omission] is "material" if a reasonable investor would have considered the [erroneous statement] [omitted fact] as important in making a decision. If you find that the Plaintiff has established this claim, you will then consider the amount of the Plaintiff's damages. The law provides that the Plaintiff may recover the difference between what the Plaintiff paid for the property (plus the reasonable cost of improvements, if any) and the fair market value of the property [at the time the Plaintiff purchased the property] [at the time this suit was brought]; [less the amount the Plaintiff received from any resale of the property by the Plaintiff]. [The Plaintiff may also recover independent appraiser fees and the expense of travel to and from the property]. 13.1 Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (15 USC § 1709(b)) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO THE JURY Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence: 1. That the “property report” [contained an untrue statement of fact] [omitted to state a fact required to be stated in the report]? Answer Yes or No [Note: If you answered No to Question No. 1 you need not answer the remaining questions.] 2. That the [untrue statement] [omitted fact] was material? Answer Yes or No [Note: If you answered No to Question No. 2 you need not answer the remaining questions.] 3. That the Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of those wrongful acts of the Defendant? Answer Yes or No 4. That the Plaintiff should be awarded the following damages: [Enumerate the elements of recoverable damages sought by the Plaintiff] $ SO SAY WE ALL. Foreperson DATED: ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS 15 USC § 1703 - - Requirements respecting sale or lease of lots It shall be unlawful for any developer or agent, directly or indirectly, to make use of any means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce, or of the mails - -(1) with respect to the sale or lease of any lot not exempt under section 1702 of this title - -* * * * * (C) to sell or lease any lot where any part of the statement of record or the property report contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein pursuant to sections 1704 through 1707 of this title or any regulations thereunder. . . . 15 USC § 1709 - Civil liabilities (a) Violations; relief recoverable. A purchaser or lessee may bring an action at law or in equity against a developer or agent if the sale or lease was made in violation of section 1703(a) of this title. In a suit authorized by this subsection, the court may order damages, specific performance, or such other relief as the court deems fair, just, and equitable. In determining such relief the court may take into account, but not be limited to, the following factors: the contract price of the lot or leasehold; the amount the purchaser or lessee actually paid; the cost of any improvements to the lot; the fair market value of the lot or leasehold at the time relief is determined; and the fair market value of the lot or leasehold at the time such lot was purchased or leased. (b) Enforcement of rights by purchaser or lessee. A purchaser or lessee may bring an action at law or in equity against the seller or lessor (or successor thereof) to enforce any right under subsection (b), (c), (d), or (e) of section 1703 of this title. (c) Amounts recoverable. The amount recoverable in a suit authorized by this section may include, in addition to matters specified in subsections (a) and (b) of this section, interest, court costs, and reasonable amounts for attorneys’ fees, independent appraisers’ fees, and travel to and from the lot. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Eleventh Circuit has ruled on whether the ILSFDA is a specific intent statute. Courts deciding the issue have concluded that the ILSFDA is not a specific intent statute. See United States v. Dacus, 634 F.2d 441, 446 (9th Cir. 1980); Hester v. Hidden Valley Lakes, Inc., 495 F.Supp. 48, 53-54 (N.D. Miss. 1980); Husted v. Amrep Corp., 429 F.Supp. 298, 310 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).