Jeff Bezos’ neighbor says broker cheated him. Experts say he has a case.

While the $79 million Bezos paid last year for his neighbor’s house on Indian Creek Island wasn’t cheap, it was $6 million less than his neighbor Leo Kryss’ asking price. After seeing the news that Bezos had bought the house next door, Kryss asked agents for his broker Douglas Elliman if Bezos was the one trying to buy his house anonymously, according to a lawsuit filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County.

Bezos bought his first home on the exclusive Indian Creek island in June 2023 for $68 million after announcing he would be moving to Miami from his old home in Seattle, home to Amazon’s headquarters . He later bought the house next door to Kryss, and earlier this year, the second-richest man bought a third adjacent property for $90 million.

Kryss, co-founder of Brazilian toy and electronics company Tectoy, said he would have charged more if Jay Parker, CEO of Douglas Elliman’s Florida region, had not told him directly that Bezos was not behind the sale and that ” the potential buyer,” which Parker assured him was not Bezos, would pay no more than $79 million, according to the suit.

The fact that Douglas Elliman’s Florida managing director called Kryss to tell him directly that Bezos didn’t make the $79 million offer gives his case good standing, said New York corporate lawyer Alton Harmon. wealth.

“The problem comes when you say something like that is not Bezos, that broker should never have said that, because at that point, there’s the possibility of a careless misrepresentation,” Harmon said.

Douglas Elliman declined to comment wealth.

Adding another wrinkle to the case, Parker told Kryss that Indian Creek Mayor Benny Klepach said someone in his family had made an offer on Kryss’ home, according to an email attached to the lawsuit. Klepach’s daughter, Celine Klepach, joined Douglas Elliman as a sales associate just weeks before the sale closed and received a commission on the sale. She no longer works for the broker, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Because Douglas Elliman worked as a deal broker, he owed no fiduciary duty to Kryss; under Florida law, the broker still had to use “skill, care and diligence in the transaction” and disclose all facts that materially affect the value of the property and are not readily observable to the buyer.

Parker had a responsibility to verify whether what he was told by Klepach was correct or not, Harmon said.

While the duty to disclose material facts typically applies to things related to the property, such as whether there was recent flooding that affected the home, asking directly if Bezos was behind the offer, Harmon said it could be argued that his involvement. it was material.

“Asking that very, very specific question, ‘Is this Jeff Bezos, because I know he bought the property next door?’ I think it became a material fact that affected the value of the property. So I think that’s a creative way to approach this,” he said.

Anat Alon-Beck, a law professor who teaches corporate law and contracts at Case Western Reserve University, said wealth that knowing Bezos was behind the sale might have prompted Kryss to offer the property at a higher price because the Amazon founder valued it more.

“A price is always what it means to the buyer – how much are you willing to pay for something? But the seller, not having full disclosure of who the buyer is, was unable to fully negotiate this,” Alon-Beck said.

Kryss is suing Douglas Elliman for damages in excess of $750,000, alleging the broker breached its contractual obligations and obligations under Florida law. Kryss also wants Douglas Elliman to give up the $3.16 million in commission it received as part of the deal. Bezos was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

While Kryss is demanding a jury trial, Douglas Elliman has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Ultimately, Alon-Beck said it’s possible the parties will settle the lawsuit out of court.

“Douglas Elliman failed in its obligations to our client. The facts, as set forth in our complaint, speak for themselves; they knew or should have known who the best beneficial buyer was and misrepresented this very important fact to our client. We have no further comment beyond what is set forth in the complaint we filed on behalf of our client,” Kryss’ attorney said in a statement.

Recommended newsletter
Data sheet: Stay on top of the tech business with close analysis of the industry’s biggest names.
Register here.