ROSCHMAN PROPERTIES, INC., ROSCHMAN PARTNERS, JOHN G. ROSCHMAN, JEFFREY S. ROSCHMAN AND ROBERT J. ROSCHMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
S.K. PARTNERS I, A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., 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.
Roschman Properties and optionees S.K. Partners disputed whether an option agreement could be recorded despite a purchase and sale agreement's non-recordation clause. The court reversed summary judgment, finding the contractual language ambiguous and requiring a trial to determine the parties' intent regarding recordation.
The court held that the intertwined paragraphs created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the parties' intent concerning recordation, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate. The case was remanded for a full evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' intended meaning.
[1] A contract provision prohibiting recordation, when incorporated by reference into another agreement, may create an ambiguity regarding the parties' intent concerning the…
[2] Ambiguous contract provisions require an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties' intent, and summary judgment is inappropriate when such factual issues exist.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Neither this Agreement nor any memorandum hereof shall be recorded in any public records and, if so recorded, such recordation shall, at the option of Seller, constitute a default by Purchaser entitling Seller to receive the Deposit hereinbefore set forth as agreed upon and liquidated damages”
The purchase and sale agreement's prohibition on recordation with penalty provisions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1981, Roschman Properties and Eastwood Park entered into a purchase and sale agreement with an option agreement allowing the optionee to purc…
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 Incorporation By Reference cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
In April of 1981, appellant, Roschman Properties, Inc., and Eastwood Park, Inc., (Eastwood) entered into an agreement for the purchase and sale of land. At the same time, they signed an option agreement contract, giving the optionee, Eastwood, the right to purchase four adjacent parcels within six years.
The purchase and sale agreement provided: 10. Neither this Agreement nor any memorandum hereof shall be recorded in any public records and, if so recorded, such recordation shall, at the option of Seller, constitute a default by Purchaser entitling Seller to receive the Deposit hereinbefore set forth as agreed upon and liquidated damages and to have any such recorded memorandum hereof or this Agreement expunged from the public records where same were recorded all at the cost and expense of Purchaser which cost and expense shall include, but not be limited to, reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by Seller for the services of his attorneys through and including all appeals.
The option agreement provided:
8. At such time as the Closing pursuant to the Other Contract [Agreement for Purchase and Sale] has taken place and Optionor (as Seller) has received the full purchase price pursuant to the Other Contract then, and in such event occurring, simultaneously the Optionor and Optionee shall execute a Memorandum of Option and record same amongst the Public Records of Martin, Florida.
10. Paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Other Contract are hereby incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein full and, except as aforesaid with respect to the Memorandum of Option, Paragraph 10 of the Other Contract is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein in full, provided that in all instances references to Seller shall be deemed references to Optionor and references as to Purchaser shall be deemed references to Optionee.
The option was assigned several times. The appellee, S.K. Partners, and others are the current optionees.
In January of 1986, the appellees recorded the option agreement. In March of 1987, the appellants learned of the rec-ordation and by letter to the appellees terminated the option. In April of 1987, the appellees attempted to exercise the option. The appellants refused and the appellees sued for, among other things, specific performance of the option agreement.
Partial summary judgment was entered in favor of the appellees ordering the appellants to perform the option agreement. The appellants appeal.
We reverse. We find the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Paragraph 10 of the purchase and sale agreement prohibits any recordation. Paragraph 8 of the option agreement dictates that a memorandum of the option shall be recorded. Paragraph 10 of the option agreement incorporates Paragraph 10 of the purchase and sale agreement “except as aforesaid with respect to the Memorandum of Option.”
The overall effect of the noted intertwined paragraphs is ambiguous. Testimony from the parties will be necessary to determine the intended impact of such paragraphs. A full evidentiary hearing is necessary to establish the intent of the parties. The hearing on the motion for summary judgment was not the appropriate forum to resolve this factual issue. Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla.1979).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
ANSTEAD and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roschman P'rs v. S.K. P'rs I., 627 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…FARMER, Judge, dissenting. Following a trial held after our earlier decision in Roschman Properties Inc. v. S.K. Partners I, 545 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the trial court entered judgment, finding that the intent of the parties underlying a non-recordation clause was: “[they] intended that an unauthorized recording of the Option Agreement would constitute a default and that the d…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Irving W. Landers et ux. v. Adelle L. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979)