ROBERT J. WOLFARTH AND KATHY WOLFARTH, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAURICE REVITZ, TRUSTEE D/B/A STAR APARTMENTS, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's judgment for specific performance of a contract and an award of attorney's fees. The court found that a binding contract existed with sufficiently definite terms and that the seller conveyed marketable title. The attorney's fees were deemed appropriate because the seller incurred legal expenses on a quantum meruit basis, triggering the buyers' contractual obligation.
The court held that a binding contract with definite terms was formed, marketable title was conveyed, and the seller was entitled to attorney's fees. The terms of the signed agreement were sufficiently definite, the title was marketable and unencumbered, and the seller's obligation to pay for legal services on a quantum meruit basis triggered the buyers' contractual obligation for attorney's fees.
[1] A contract is sufficiently definite to support a specific performance decree when its terms are clear enough to constitute a binding agreement.
[2] A seller satisfies the requirement of tendering marketable title when the conveyed property is unencumbered by significant deficiencies or encroachments.
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 terms of the signed agreement between the parties were, as the trial court concluded, sufficiently definite to constitute a binding contract so as to support a specific performance decree”
Establishes the court's finding that a valid contract existed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Wolfarths appealed a final judgment for specific performance and an order awarding attorney's fees to Maurice Revitz, the seller of Star Apartment…
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 Marketable Title cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment sounding in specific performance and a subsequent interlocutory order awarding attorney’s fees. The final judgment is attacked on appeal on two bases.
First, it is asserted that no contract was entered into by the parties and, alternatively, that even if a contract existed, its terms were too indefinite to support a specific performance decree.
Second, it is asserted that good and marketable title was not tendered by the seller.
We reject both contentions as (a) the terms of the signed agreement between the parties were, as the trial court concluded, sufficiently definite to constitute a binding contract so as to support a specific performance decree, Bluevack, Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. of Fla., 331 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); English v. Clark, 289 So. 2d 33, 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); 330 Michigan Ave. Inc. v. Cambridge Hotel, Inc., 183 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and (b) the title conveyed to the real property was marketable title unencumbered by any significant deficiencies or encroachments. Sutton v. Cast-Crete Corp. of Fla., 197 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967).
The attorney’s fée order under review is attacked on appeal on the basis that no evidence was presented below which established that the seller Maurice Revitz as the prevailing party was obligated to pay his attorney a reasonable attorney’s fee; it is therefore urged that the said seller was not entitled under the contract between the parties to attorney’s fees from the buyers Robert and Kathy Wolfarth. We cannot agree.
The evidence below established that legal services of considerable value were rendered to the seller by competent counsel; clearly, the seller was obligated to pay for those services on a quantum meruit basis which, in turn, triggered the buyers’ contractual obligation to pay for same as the non-prevailing party below. We are further unconvinced by the remaining attack made herein on the attorney’s fee order. The final judgment and attorney’s fee order under review are in all respects
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- 330 Mich. Ave., Inc. v. Cambridge Hotel, Inc., 183 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- Bluevack, Inc. v. Walter E. Heller & Co. OF Fla., 331 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- English v. Clark, 289 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Sutton v. Cast-Crete Corp. OF Fla., 197 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)