GILBERT J. WOOD AND MARY C. WOOD, APPELLANTS,
v.
THEODORE W. ENSWORTH, AND EMMA J. ENSWORTH, 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.
The court held that sellers must prove strict compliance with contract provisions or that compliance was excused or prevented by the purchasers to invoke a forfeiture of the earnest money deposit.
Purchasers sued sellers for their earnest money deposit after a real estate sale failed to close because sellers did not obtain a title insurance bind…
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.
LEHAN, Judge.
This is a suit brought by the purchasers under a real estate sales contract to recover from the sellers an earnest money deposit which was retained' by the sellers. The contemplated sale was not closed. Sellers had not obtained the title insurance binder required by the contract, and the purchasers were unable to pay the purchase price at closing.
The trial court, after a jury verdict was rendered favorable to the purchasers, entered a final judgment for the purchasers in the amount of the deposit and for attorney’s fees recoverable by the prevailing party pursuant to the contract. Sellers appeal, contending that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a directed verdict and that their failure to obtain a title insurance binder was waived by the purchasers’ failure to ask for the binder. We affirm and adopt the rationale of Picard v. Burroughs, 304 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), that In order to successfully invoke a forfeiture provision in a contract for the sale and purchase of real estate, the party seeking the forfeiture must (in the absence of a specific provision in the contract to the contrary) first prove strict compliance with those provisions of the contract required to be complied with by the party seeking the forfeiture, or else prove that such compliance has been either excused or prevented by the party against whom the forfeiture is sought.
Id. at 456. Under the facts of this case the jury could have found that the sellers’ failure to obtain the title binder was not excused or prevented by the purchasers.
We find no merit in the other contentions of sellers.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment and the award of attorney’s fees.
OTT, C.J., and SCHEB, J., concur.