BERNARD CANTOR AND ETHEL CANTOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIAN HOTCHKISS, 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.
Buyers sought specific performance to compel a seller to deliver a corrected deed conveying additional property to cure encroachments and zoning violations discovered after contract signing. The trial court ordered specific performance and required the buyers to pay for the additional land on a pro-rata basis. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court properly exercised its equitable powers in granting specific performance with equitable adjustments.
The trial court properly granted specific performance of the contract and letter agreement. The court may exercise equitable powers to require adjustments between the parties when granting specific performance, and the requirement that buyers pay for the additional land on a pro-rata basis was an appropriate equitable adjustment.
[1] A trial court may do equity between parties when decreeing specific performance of a contract.
[2] A party seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property may rely on a written agreement confirming a seller's promise to deliver a corrected deed…
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“He who comes into equity, must do equity. In decreeing specific performance a trial court may do equity between the parties when granting such relief.”
Establishes the foundational equitable principle allowing trial courts to make adjustments between parties in specific performance cases.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBuyers and seller executed a contract for sale of real property with a residence and swimming pool. Before closing, the parties discovered the pool an…
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 Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
This is an appeal and a cross-appeal from a final order in an action for specific performance.
The buyers and seller signed a contract for sale of real property that had been improved with a residence and a swimming pool. Prior to the closing, the parties discovered that the pool and pool deck encroached upon the adjacent lot (also owned by the seller) and that certain of the improvements were in violation of city zoning ordinances as to setbacks. The closing occurred subject to the seller’s agreeing to have both lots surveyed and a corrected deed delivered to the buyers. This agreement was confirmed in a letter. The evidence disclosed that essentially the new deed would convey a portion of the adjacent lot eliminating any encroachment or ordinance violations. The seller never delivered the corrected deed. The buyer then brought an action for specific performance of the contract for the sale of the property and the letter agreement. The trial court denied the seller’s motion to dismiss the complaint and ordered the delivery of a deed reflecting the description of the additional property to be conveyed. The order provided that the buyers pay for the additional land on a pro-rata basis.
The buyers have brought an appeal contending that the trial court erred in requiring them to pay for the additional land and the sellers have brought a cross-appeal urging error in the trial court entertaining the proceeding. We affirm.
He who comes into equity, must do equity. In decreeing specific performance a trial court may do equity between the parties when granting such relief. See & compare: Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. J.W. Brown and Town of Madison, 119 Fla. 610, 160 So. 657 (1935); 48 Fla.Jur.2d, Specific Performance § 138; 81 A C.J.S., Specific Performance § 208b.
No merit is found in the cross-appeal as to the right of the buyers to seek specific performance on the written agreement. Hi-Acres Groves, Inc., v. Bassett, 338 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Walker v. Connolly, 299 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).
Therefore for the reasons above stated the order of specific performance here under review is hereby approved in all respects.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 119 Fla. 610 (Fla. 1935)
- Walker v. Connolly, 299 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Hi-Acres Groves, Inc. v. Bassett, 338 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)