STEPHEN LEON, TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCHISE STORES REALTY CORPORATION, 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.
In a real estate contract dispute involving a $100,000 earnest money deposit, the trial court ordered the trustee appellant to deposit the disputed funds into the court registry. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600 permits only voluntary deposits and does not authorize courts to compel unwilling parties to deposit disputed sums.
No. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600 is permissive in nature and authorizes only voluntary deposits by parties, not court orders compelling unwilling parties to deposit disputed sums into the registry.
[1] A trial court may not compel an unwilling party to deposit a disputed sum of money into the court's registry under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600.
[2] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600 authorizes a party's voluntary payment of money into the court registry, not a compelled deposit.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“rule 1.600 is permissive in nature and does not permit the trial court to enter an order compelling an unwilling party to deposit a disputed sum into the court's registry”
States the core holding that Rule 1.600 does not authorize compelled deposits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties entered into a contract for exchange of real property, with appellee delivering a $100,000 earnest money deposit to appellant. A dispute a…
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 Rescission Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
Appellant appeals a non-final order directing appellant to deposit funds into the registry of the trial court. We agree with the appellant that the trial court erred in ordering the appellant to deposit $100,000 into the court’s registry.
In the instant case, the parties entered into a contract for the exchange of real property and, pursuant to the terms of the contract, appellee delivered a $100,000 earnest money deposit to appellant. A dispute arose between the parties and appellant sought a declaratory judgment that the contract was still valid and enforceable and that all conditions required of appellant had been fulfilled. The complaint also sought specific performance of the contract and damages for breach of contract. Appellee counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment as to appellee’s rights and duties under the contract, rescission of the contract, and damages based upon appellant’s willful, intentional, and reckless disregard for appellee’s rights under the contract. During the course of the litigation, appellee motioned the trial court for entry of an order compelling appellant to deposit the $100,000 earnest money deposit plus interest into the court’s registry.
Appellee maintains that the trial court properly ordered the appellant to deposit money into the court registry pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600 which provides: In an action in which any part of the relief sought is a judgment for a sum of money or the disposition of a sum of money or the disposition of any other thing capable of delivery, a party may deposit all or any part of such sum or thing with the court upon notice to every other party and by leave of court. Money paid into court under this rule shall be deposited and withdrawn by order of court.
However, in Law v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court refers to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.600 as authorizing a party’s voluntary payment of money into the court registry. The instant case does not involve a voluntary deposit by a party, but rather a request by one party for an order compelling the opposing party to deposit money into the court’s registry.
In our view, rule 1.600 is permissive in nature and does not permit the trial court to enter an order compelling an unwilling party to deposit a disputed sum into the court’s registry. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order directing appellant to deposit funds into the court’s registry.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs in conclusion only.
LETTS, J., concurs specially with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
concurring specially.
I would reverse on the basis of Konover Realty Associates, Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 591 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…horizes the voluntary payment into the registry of the court by a party, but not an order compelling payment into the court, citing Law v. NCNB National Bank of Florida, 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and Leon v. Franchise Stores Realty Corp., 549 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). However, Williams argues that, when 697.07 is enforced, it compels the trial courts of this state to automatically deposit rents into the Registry of the Court. In addition, he argues that it directly conflicts with Rule 1.600,…1 / 2
-
Morroni v. Fisher, 647 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ule contemplates only a voluntary deposit of funds. It is permissive in nature and does not allow a trial court to enter an order compelling an unwilling party to deposit a disputed sum into the court registry. Leon v. Franchise Stores Realty Corp., 549 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Moreover, the appellees’ counterclaim does not seek a money judgment for the fair rental value of the properties; the causes of action asserted against the Morronis are ejectment, possession and trespass. A trial court has no a…
-
Alec Ross v. Nova Townhouse Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 574 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…ls a non-final order directing him to deposit funds into the registry of the trial court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). We reverse on the authority of Leon v. Franchise Stores Realty Corp., 549 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). GUNTHER, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Konover Realty Assocs., Ltd. v. Mladen, 511 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Suggs v. State, 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Mary L. LAW v. NCNB Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 452 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)