WILLIAM L. MEYERS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID A. CUNNINGHAM, EVELYN B. CUNNINGHAM, AUDREY A. ELVER AND ELVER-MCBRIDE ASSOC., INC., APPELLEES
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.
In this real estate dispute, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and held that a buyer who made a good-faith effort to obtain financing within the contractually required time period was entitled to recover his $13,000 deposit when the lender denied his application, since the financing contingency had failed.
The buyer was entitled to the return of his $13,000 deposit because he applied promptly for the loan at a recognized financial institution and supplied all necessary information as requested, which satisfied his obligations under the financing contingency clause regardless of whether the lender ultimately approved or denied the application.
[1] A contract for the purchase of realty, made contingent on the buyer obtaining a mortgage loan within a specified time, entitles the buyer to the return of their deposit i…
[2] A buyer demonstrates reasonable diligence in seeking a mortgage loan by promptly applying to a recognized lending institution and providing all requested information.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The uncontradicted evidence in this record establishes that the plaintiff Meyers was entitled to the return of his $13,000 deposit sued for in this action under the contract which he entered into for the purchase of certain realty in Monroe County, Florida.”
The court's core holding that the evidence clearly supported Meyers' right to recover his deposit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeyers entered into a contract to purchase realty in Monroe County, Florida, with a $13,000 deposit contingent upon obtaining mortgage financing withi…
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 Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final judgment under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter judgment for the plaintiff William L. Meyers as prayed for in his complaint. The uncontra-dicted evidence in this record establishes that the plaintiff Meyers was entitled to the return of his $13,000 deposit sued for in this action under the contract which he entered into for the purchase of certain realty in Monroe County, Florida.
The subject contract of sale was made expressly contingent on the plaintiff Meyers, as buyer, obtaining a certain mortgage loan within thirty (30) days of the date of the contract; either party was authorized to cancel the said contract if the above mortgage loan was not obtained within the above-stated time period. It is undisputed that the plaintiff Meyers made application for the said mortgage loan at a savings and loan association in Marathon, Florida, within a week of the signing of the above-stated contract; subsequently, the plaintiff Meyers supplied the above institution with all the necessary information requested with reference to the loan application. It is equally undisputed that the said institution refused the requested loan application, that as a result the said mortgage loan was not obtained within the time period required by the contract, that the plaintiff Meyers elected to cancel the contract and demanded the return of his $13,000 deposit, and that the defendants David and Evelyn Cunningham, as sellers, refused to authorize the return of the deposit.
The trial court below concluded that the plaintiff Meyers was not entitled to the return of his $13,000 deposit because he did not use reasonable diligence as required by the contract to procure the mortgage loan in question. We cannot agree. The plaintiff Meyers applied promptly for said loan at a recognized savings and loan association and thereafter supplied that institution with all the necessary information required to process the said application. We are at a loss to understand what more the plaintiff Meyers could have done in order to pursue this loan. Based on the express terms of the contract, it is clear that the plaintiff Meyers was entitled to the return of his deposit. Merritt v. Davis, 265 So. 2d 69 (Fla.3d DCA 1972).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arthur Rutenberg Corp. v. Pasin, 506 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…king a mortgage. This conclusion was supported by the evidence, and no abuse of discretion has been shown. Cf. Biersbach v. Landin, Ltd., 454 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Brown v. Matton, 406 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Meyers v. Cunningham, 415 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for modification of the final judgment as to the cross-claim by entering judgment for the buyer for the entire deposit. The award of costs in favor of the defendant is also reversed. That porti…
-
Burnett v. Brito, 478 So. 2d 845 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…tos’ acquiescence in such efforts, we find there was substantial, competent evidence to sustain the judgment on the basis that Mr. Burnett made a diligent effort to secure financing in ac- [*848] cordanee with the contract. See Meyers v. Cunningham, 415 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Merritt v. Davis, 265 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). This leaves the buyer’s contentions for consideration. Mr. Burnett first contends the trial court erred in denying him an award of attorney’s fees. He bases his argument on a p…
-
Galt View Apts., Inc. v. Fazio, 490 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…minates the contract. The Walker case and its rationale have no application here for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the issue in [*1009] Walker was waiver and estoppel rather than good faith and diligence. Meyers v. Cunningham, 415 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), is cited by appellant for the proposition that once an application is rejected, a party obligated to fulfill a condition precedent has no further obligation and is excused from performance of the main contract. In Meyers, no issu…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Merritt v. Davis, 265 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)