This case is controlled by principles enunciated in Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So.2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), where we held that the issue of fraud is not ordinarily a proper subject for summary judgment because, being a subtle matter, proving the cause of action may require a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong to permit a determination whether they collectively constitute fraud. It is not established conclusively in the record that the appellee Kranz, as an agent of the defrauding principal, was not a participant in a conspiracy to defraud. See Karnegis v. Oakes, 296 So.2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 307 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1975).

Reversed and remanded.