Bay Harbour Investment Wins $300K Fraud Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
This high-stakes commercial lawsuit stemmed from a real estate deal gone sour in Miami-Dade County, Florida. In February 2022, Plaintiff Bay Harbour Investment, Inc. filed a sweeping complaint against four Defendants two limited liability companies, 9740 W Bay Harbor Dr, LLC and SINA, LLC, and two individuals, Samuel Sami and Elias Sabbagh after the purchase of a valuable waterfront property. The core of the dispute centered on alleged misrepresentations and broken promises regarding the property's condition and its development potential. Bay Harbour Investment claimed the Defendants knowingly deceived them into closing the transaction, resulting in significant financial damage.
Cause
Bay Harbour Investment levied multiple serious accusations against the Defendants, primarily focusing on deceit and contractual failure. The Plaintiff asserted the Defendants engaged in Fraud in the Inducement, which meant they intentionally made false statements about the property to trick the buyer into signing the contract. The Plaintiff also sued for Breach of Contract, arguing the sellers failed to deliver the property under the agreed-upon terms, and Negligent Misrepresentation, a claim that the Defendants made misstatements without reasonable grounds for believing they were true, even if they were not intentionally fraudulent. These claims formed the basis for seeking a multi-million-dollar judgment.
Injury
The Plaintiff claimed a host of financial injuries directly flowed from the Defendants’ deceit. Fundamentally, Bay Harbour Investment suffered the economic harm of purchasing a waterfront parcel of land that was not what the sellers promised. This injury included substantial and unexpected remediation costs, development delays, and the loss of financial benefits that the property should have delivered. The Plaintiff argued that because they relied on the Defendants' false statements, they suffered damages that included the difference between the actual value of the property and its represented value.
Damages Sought
Bay Harbour Investment demanded a judgment for damages exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of $30,000.00. Given the nature of the claims fraud, breach of contract, and misrepresentation the Plaintiff sought to recover a massive sum that covered their actual losses (compensatory damages). Furthermore, because of the deliberate nature of the alleged fraud, the Plaintiff also demanded Punitive Damages, which aimed not to compensate the Plaintiff but to punish the Defendants for their outrageous conduct and deter similar behavior in the future.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The lawsuit spanned over three years, developing into a complex trial over who bore responsibility for the costly issues discovered after the property sale closed. The Defendants strongly denied all allegations, pushing back against the idea that they misled the buyer or breached any agreement.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Bay Harbour Investment, Inc.
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Moises Alejandro Saltiel | Matthew Carcano
Defendant(s): 9740 W Bay Harbor Dr, LLC | SINA, LLC | Samuel Sami | Elias Sabbagh
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Andrew S. Atkins, Esq. | Francis R. Gil | Scott Hayden | Angelique Gulla
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Counsel for Bay Harbour Investment focused on the clear pattern of intentional misstatements and omissions that led their client to believe they purchased a clean, ready-to-develop waterfront property. They provided the jury with evidence demonstrating the Defendants knew the property had undisclosed issues, such as problems with the sea wall or permitting, yet concealed or lied about those defects to ensure the closing took place. The argument centered on the Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance on those fraudulent representations as the sole reason for entering the contract.
Defense
The Defendants, through their counsel, filed a broad denial, asserting that the Plaintiff had not suffered any damages and that they had not committed any wrongful acts. They presented several powerful affirmative defenses that challenged the Plaintiff's ability to recover damages.
Waiver and Estoppel: The defense argued that Bay Harbour Investment had effectively waived its right to sue. They claimed the Plaintiff received lien and permit search results approximately six weeks before the closing date. Because the Plaintiff had this information—which allegedly revealed the issues but still chose to close the deal, the defense argued the Plaintiff could not now claim fraud or breach. This defense asserted that the Plaintiff’s own actions after gaining knowledge of the alleged problems barred their claims.
Failure to Mitigate Damages: The defense claimed that if the Plaintiff suffered any damages, they were a result of the Plaintiff’s own failure to take reasonable steps to prevent or minimize their losses after the purchase.
Final Judgment - Jury Verdict
In the case of Bay Harbour Investment, Inc. v. 9740 W Bay Harbor Dr, LLC et al., the jury trial concluded on May 16, 2025, and Judge Antonio Arzola entered Final Judgment on May 28, 2025. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Bay Harbour Investment, Inc., against all four Defendants on multiple counts of fraud in the inducement and negligent misrepresentation.
Total damages awarded: $300,000.00, broken down as follows: Defendant 9740 W Bay Harbor Dr, LLC was held liable for $59,000.00 in damages under Count I (Fraud in the Inducement). Defendant Sina, LLC was held liable for $59,000.00 in damages under Count II (Fraud in the Inducement). Defendant Elias Sabbagh was held liable for $127,400.00 in damages under Count III (Negligent Misrepresentation). Defendant Samuel Sami was held liable for $54,600.00 in damages under Count IV (Negligent Misrepresentation). No damages were awarded under Counts V and VI for Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices against any of the Defendants.
In addition to the base damages, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover pre-judgment interest on each damage amount from October 8, 2021, until the date of judgment at the statutory rate under Florida law. The total judgment, including pre-judgment interest, will also accrue post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The Court reserved jurisdiction to enforce collection of the judgment and to determine entitlement to attorney's fees and costs.