KENNETH ALLEN AND EDITH ALLEN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
TED HENDEL, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed specific performance of a real estate contract but struck the trial court's requirement that buyers reimburse the seller for property maintenance expenses, finding the contract allocated those costs to the seller.
A trial court's specific performance decree awarding a real estate contract to the seller is affirmed except that the requirement for buyers to reimburse the seller's property maintenance expenses must be stricken as contrary to the contract's express terms.
[1] In a specific performance action for breach of a real estate contract, the trial court may not impose obligations on the parties that contradict the express terms of the…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“no abuse of the chancellor's admittedly broad discretion in fashioning an equitable specific performance decree has been demonstrated on this record”
Court's general deference to trial court's discretion in specific performance cases, with one exception
Kenneth and Edith Allen agreed to purchase real property from Ted Hendel under a contract for sale. The trial court awarded specific performance in fa…
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 Equitable Decree cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff-buyers [Kenneth and Edith Allen] from a final judgment awarding specific performance on a contract for the sale of realty. The plaintiff-buyers complain on appeal that the trial court in its final judgment re-wrote the contract between the parties in several respects and failed to award them certain incidental damages. We are not persuaded by these contentions, save one, as we find that, on the whole, no abuse of the chancellor’s admittedly broad discretion in fashioning an equitable specific performance decree has been demonstrated on this record. See Kauffmann v. Baker, 392 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
There is, however, one point urged on appeal which we find meritorious. The trial court ordered in paragraph 5 of the final judgment that the plaintiff-buyers reimburse the defendant-seller [Ted Hendel] for certain expenses incurred by the said seller in maintaining the subject property until six days prior to occupancy by the plaintiff-buyers. We have carefully examined the contract between the parties, particularly paragraphs N, O, Q, and R therein, and find that the above expenses must be borne under the said contract by the defendant-seller, rather than the plaintiff-buyers. Accordingly, paragraph 5 of the final judgment must be stricken as being contrary to the governing provisions of the contract between the parties. See Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So. 2d 604 (Fla.1957).
The final judgment under review is affirmed save for paragraph 5 therein, which paragraph is hereby stricken.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gendzier v. Bielecki, 97 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1957)
- Hernandez v. Leiva, 391 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Kauffmann v. Baker, 392 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)