WILLIAM S. DEPP, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID H. RUNYAN AND MOYA P. RUNYAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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 a finding of bad faith is required to award benefit of the bargain damages in a breach of a land sales contract case.
[1] A contract provision limiting a buyer's damages to a return of the deposit is enforceable when a seller fails to convey marketable title.
[2] Benefit of the bargain damages are not recoverable in a breach of a land sales contract action without a finding of bad faith by the seller.
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 intelligenceAppellant and appellees entered into a contract for the sale of real property. Appellant failed to convey the property due to a mortgage foreclosure. …
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 Benefit Of The Bargain Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
This appeal questions the correctness of a summary final judgment rendered in favor of appellees, David H. Runyan and Moya P. Runyan, in a breach of contract action involving the purchase and sale of real property. The trial court awarded appellees money damages based on benefit of the bargain, instead of a return of the earnest money deposit as provided for in the contract. We reverse and remand.
Appellant and appellees entered into a deposit receipt contract for the sale of real property. The contract provided that appellant at closing was to provide appellees a title insurance commitment showing good and insurable title in appellant. In the event appellant was unable to convey the property with good and marketable title, appellees’ damages were limited to a return of the deposit in the amount of $100,
Prior to the closing date as set forth in the contract, the mortgagee of appellant foreclosed on the property because of a deficiency in the payments on the mortgage. Consequently, appellant failed to convey the property pursuant to the terms of the contract. Appellant testified that he had informed the realtor of the problems he was having with the mortgage foreclosure, but appellees insisted that they had no prior knowledge of the foreclosure.
Appellees raised the issue of bad faith on the part of appellant. The trial court granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment and awarded appellees damages based on the benefit of the bargain.
A careful examination of the record discloses the existence of an unresolved issue of material fact as to whether appellant was guilty of bad faith in this instance. In order for a trial court to award benefit of the bargain damages in a case involving the breach of a land sales contract, it must first make a finding of bad faith. Key v. Alexander, 91 Fla. 975, 108 So. 888 (1926); Vogel v. Vandiver, 373 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); and Horton v. O’Rourke, 321 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this cause for further consideration.
OTT, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montez Howard v. Metcalf, 487 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ct the breach, the purchaser’s damages may be measured by the benefit of the bargain, i.e. the difference in value between the price the purchaser had agreed to pay and the value of the property at the scheduled time of closing. Id.; Depp v. Runyan, 468 So. 2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1985); VanDerNoord v. Katz, 481 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Here, unlike Bosso, the complaint neither seeks nor specifically refers to damages measured by the benefit of the bargain. Moreover, to be entitled to that kind of award, H…
-
Benitez v. Diaz, 696 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…d to the Buyers. In light of these disputed issues of material fact, we cannot agree that, as a matter of law, the Buyers were entitled to the entry of Final Summary Judgment.1 See White v. Kirlew, 574 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Depp v. Runyan, 468 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Marco Surfside, Inc. v. Velez, 438 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Further, we find that this action is to be tried in the County Court upon remand because: (1) the action for specific performance is no longer part of this case (…
Authorities Cited
- Key v. Alexander, 91 Fla. 975 (Fla. 1926)
- Horton v. O'Rourke, 321 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- R. M. Vogel and R. v. Gisselbeck, 373 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)