MARIANNE TEUBNER, APPELLANT,
v.
SAADEDINE M. EL-DICK, 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 reversed a specific performance judgment for an oral real property contract because the parties lacked a meeting of the minds on essential terms and the alleged purchaser failed to establish possession sufficient to remove the contract from the Statute of Frauds.
An oral contract for the sale of real property cannot be specifically enforced when the parties lack a meeting of the minds on essential terms such as purchase price and financing, and the alleged purchaser has not established possession inconsistent with a mere rental.
[1] An oral contract for the sale of real property cannot be enforced by specific performance unless the parties achieved a meeting of the minds on all essential terms, inclu…
[2] To remove an oral real property contract from the Statute of Frauds, the alleged purchaser must establish clear and positive acts of possession inconsistent with a mere r…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarianne Teubner, a property owner, was ordered by the trial court to specifically perform an oral contract to sell real property to Saadedine El-Dick…
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 Essential Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal brought by Marianne Teubner (the property owner) from a final judgment which ordered specific performance of an oral contract to sell certain real property. We reverse for two particular reasons:
First: There was no meeting of the minds at any point in time as to certain essential terms of the alleged contract. There was confusion, controversy, and no agreement as to the purchase price and as to the financing or mortgaging arrangements. Such lack is fatal as concerns specific performance. Farrell v. Phillips, 414 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Mehler v. Huston, 57 So. 2d 836 (Fla.1952).
Second: In order to remove an oral contract from the Statute of Frauds and to enforce it, there must be proof of possession of the premises. Polishuk v. Caidin, 411 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1982); Avery v. Marine Bank and Trust Company, 216 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Here, there is no such proof of clear and positive acts of possession inconsistent with a finding that appellee (the alleged purchaser) was merely renting the property. Having considered all points, the advice and arguments of counsel, and the record, the final judgment on appeal is
REVERSED.
HURLEY, DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moraitis v. Galluzzo, 487 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…nk & Trust Company, 216 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). Moreover, the contract remains unenforceable unless the purchaser shows that he is in possession pursuant to the oral contract rather than as a result of a prior tenancy. See Tuebner v. El Dick, 449 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Polishuck v. Cadin, 411 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 417 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1982). Each of these elements must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Unatin v. Hudon, 383 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Hi-Acres G…
-
Anne Renfro v. Dodge, 520 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…operation of the Statute of Frauds (section 725.01) would permit by indirection that which cannot be done directly. See Lanier v. Poppell, 359 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Battle v. Butler, 138 Fla. 392, 189 So. 846 (1939); and Teubner v. El-Dick, 449 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), to the effect that to remove an oral contract from the Statute of Frauds and to enforce that agreement, there must be proof of delivery of possession of the real property, which was never accomplished in this case. In First Gul…
Authorities Cited
- Mehler v. Huston, 57 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1952)
- Avery v. Marine Bank & Tr. Co., 216 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Farrell v. Phillips, 414 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Polishuk v. Caidin, 411 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)