OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
RENE J. LEONARD AND MARTHA LEONARD, 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.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court judgment favoring a home seller and remanded for entry of judgment for the buyer. The seller failed to comply with express contractual warranties regarding building code violations, marketable title, and conformity to architectural plans, thus breaching the contract and forfeiting the right to the buyer's deposit.
The trial court erred in forfeiting the buyer's deposit and entering judgment for the seller. Because the seller failed to strictly comply with its obligations under the contract—specifically the express warranties—the buyer was entitled to rescission of the contract and return of his deposit. The buyer is also entitled to a vendee's lien on the property and prejudgment interest.
[1] A seller's express warranties in a real estate contract, including compliance with building codes, conformity to plans, and marketable title, are conditions precedent to…
[2] A seller's failure to correct building code violations existing at the time of closing constitutes a breach of contract.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It was error, therefore, for the trial court to enter judgment for the seller forfeiting buyer's deposit.”
States the core holding that the trial court's judgment for the seller was erroneous because the seller breached contractual obligations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOscar Rodriguez contracted to purchase a house from seller Rene J. Leonard. The contract contained express warranties that at closing there would be n…
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 Building Code Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final judgment entered in favor of the seller/builder/appellee Rene J. Leonard and remand with directions to enter judgment in favor of the buyer/appellant Oscar S. Rodriguez upon the following briefly stated analysis.
The contract between these parties contained seller’s express warranties that, at the time of closing, there would be no violations of the applicable building codes and the house would conform to the plans submitted and a condition that, prior to closing, the seller would provide an abstract showing title to the subject real property to be marketable. The overwhelming evidence discloses that, at the time the seller attempted to enforce closing, (1) building code violations existed (uncorrected code violations remained even at time of trial), (2) title was not marketable (among other things, the property was burdened with a restrictive covenant on which the seller failed to obtain a release), and (3) the house in question, as built, did not conform to the contract plans (for example, the kitchen was built 3.5 feet shorter than as depicted in the architectural drawings).
It was error, therefore, for the trial court to enter judgment for the seller forfeiting buyer’s deposit. See Reider v. P-48, Inc., 362 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (trial court erred in finding purchasers breached contract by failing to close and in awarding seller deposit money as liquidated damages where seller did not strictly comply with its obligations under contract), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1126 (Fla.1979); see also Picard v. Burroughs, 304 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (forfeiture of binder payment not justified where record revealed that neither party strictly complied with provisions of contract), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 191 (Fla.1975). The trial court, in light of the foregoing circumstances, should have granted the buyer's counterclaim for rescission. See Reider. On remand, Rodriguez will be entitled to a vendee’s lien on the property to satisfy the monies advanced by him pursuant to the contract. He will also be entitled to prejudgment interest. See Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985).
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henley v. MacDONALD, 971 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…y. See Chafetz v. Price, 385 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, city code violations have been found to render title unmarketable only where the contract specifically warrants against such code violations. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Leonard, 477 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Paragraph VII of the contract provides for marketable title: Seller shall convey marketable title subject to ... prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority ... provided, that there exists at Closing no…
Authorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. MAY Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1985)
- Jean-Paul Picard v. Burroughs, 304 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Reider v. P-48, Inc., 362 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jean-Paul Picard v. Burroughs, 315 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 1975)