GERTRUDE E. KENNEDY, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
MOLLIE N. WILMOT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A seller appealed the grant of summary judgment that excused a buyer from specific performance in a real property transaction dispute. The court reversed, finding multiple unresolved factual questions that precluded summary disposition.
Summary judgment was improper because multiple unresolved factual questions precluded summary disposition. The court held that a requirement in a sales contract that there be no encroachments, easements, or setback violations would not automatically vitiate the contract if such deficiencies exist, provided the seller can cure them within proper time limits and present acceptable title at closing.
[1] Summary judgment is inappropriate when unresolved issues of fact remain.
[2] A seller may be entitled to specific performance of a land sale contract if they can cure title deficiencies within the contract's time limits.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“there is just no way around several, unresolved, although perhaps unresolvable, issues of fact which preclude summary disposition”
The court's principal reason for reversing summary judgment—multiple factual questions remained unresolved.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA parcel of land was sold under a contract of sale. Disputes arose regarding the timeliness and delivery of the abstract to the buyer's attorney, alle…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Defects cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
The seller of a parcel of land here appeals the granting of a summary judgment effectively excusing the buyer from specific performance. We reverse.
We believe there are several questions of fact remaining unresolved in this cause. For example:
1. Was the original delivery to the buyer, of the abstract, timely?
2. Was the original delivery of the abstract made to the purchaser’s attorney?
3. Did the actions of the buyer’s husband bind the buyer so that she was es-topped to deny that Beall was her attorney?
4. Does Beall’s testimony indicate that he was, or was not, the purchaser’s attorney? 1
5. Did the purchaser have a duty to examine the abstract delivered and notify the seller as to the state of the title?
6. Would the encroachment have been removed prior to the expiration of all time limits set forth in the contract of sale and did the purchaser waive it by not securing a survey?
7. Would the seller have secured the abandonment of the road bisecting the property by the expiration of all time limits set forth in the contract of sale?
8. Was the variation in setback lines from the “approximate” dune line, a substantial breach of the seller’s representations in the contract? This case has developed into an extraordinary maze of pleadings and allegations. However, there is just no way around several, unresolved, although perhaps unresolvable, issues of fact which preclude summary disposition.
As to the additional problem concerning the operative date on which title deficiencies would have to be cured, by reason of the alleged specification of them as warranties riot defects, we do not agree that a requirement in a sales contract that there be no encroachments, easements, or set back violations would, instanter, vitiate it simply because these shortcomings exist. If the seller can cure any such offending deficiencies within the proper time limits set forth, so that he can timely present the title in acceptable form, then such a course of curative action should suffice. The warranty deed is presented at closing, not on the initial date on which the sales contract is signed.
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
DOWNEY, C. J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
. His testimony comes close to admitting that he was her attorney and certainly raises an issue of fact as to what his relationship was.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially:
There are substantial questions of fact which were left unresolved by the summary judgment and the resolution of which might lead to a judgment for either party. For that'reason I concur in the reversal but I do not deem it appropriate for us to comment upon the warranties or defects concerning alleged encroachments, or the characterization of the attorney’s testimony.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fione G. Wells v. Wilkerson, 391 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…y moot. Appellant suggests the existence of several genuine issues of material fact that require reversal of the summary judgment. We recently reiterated the rule that unresolved material factual issues preclude summary judgment. Kennedy v. Wilmot, 371 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The first such issue is whether there was an agreement between the parties. There was a signed contract and neither party suggests that prior to or at the December closing the validity or enforceability of that contract was que…