A Brazilian toy company founder, Leo Kryss, has filed a lawsuit against real estate brokerage Douglas Elliman for allegedly misleading him about the identity of the buyer of his $79 million Miami mansion.
Kryss claims he sold the property for less than its asking price due to false information provided by the realtor, who denied that Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos was the purchaser.
In May 2023, Kryss listed his luxurious seven-bedroom house in Indian Creek Village, which features amenities such as a wine cellar, library, theatre, and pool, for $85 million.
A month later, Bezos acquired a neighboring 2.8-acre property for $68 million. Soon after, Kryss received an offer for his home below the asking price.
According to the lawsuit filed in the circuit court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Kryss specifically asked Elliman if Bezos was behind the offer. Jay Parker, Elliman’s CEO for the Florida region, personally assured Kryss that Bezos was not the buyer and that the purchaser would not pay more than $79 million.
This assurance led Kryss to sell the property at a 7.1 percent discount. “In reliance upon Mr. Parker’s affirmative representations regarding the identity of the potential and ultimate buyer of the home, Kryss was induced to reduce the sale price of the home by millions of dollars,” the suit stated.
Kryss emphasized that knowing Bezos already owned the adjacent property was "highly material" to the negotiations and the final sales price.
The fact that Bezos owned the neighboring property made it "significantly more valuable to Bezos than to other potential buyers," the suit added. Elliman earned a 4 percent commission on the sale, amounting to over $3 million. Kryss is seeking damages exceeding $750,000 for what he describes as the broker’s “breach of contract, breach of its duties, and negligent misrepresentations.”
Dana Clayton, representing Kryss, stated, “Douglas Elliman failed to fulfill their duties to our client. The facts, as set forth in our complaint, speak for themselves; they knew or should have known who the ultimate beneficial purchaser was and misrepresented that very important fact to our client.”
Comments