WILLIAM ROYALL MIDDELTHON, JR., AS TRUSTEE, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES J. CROWDER, AS TRUSTEE, 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 breach of real estate contract action, the court reversed the jury's damages award and directed entry of judgment for the full calculated amount of $93,500 plus interest. The seller's cross-appeal claiming no binding contract was rejected, as the court found the contract validly proven through multiple documents despite not all parties signing the same instrument.
When a seller breaches a real estate contract and resells the property for a higher price, the buyer is entitled to damages equal to the profit made by the seller on the subsequent sale. The jury's award was improper because the damages were liquidated by the two contracts, and the jury was required to conform to the court's instructions rather than independently select a figure. A binding real estate contract may be proven through a series of documents, and not all parties need sign the same instrument.
[1] A purchaser is entitled to damages equal to the profit made by the seller in a subsequent sale when the seller breaches a real estate contract.
[2] A jury is bound by the court's instructions on the measure of damages in a breach of contract action.
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“the plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the profit made by the seller in a sale to a subsequent purchaser”
Establishes the proper measure of damages in breach of contract where seller resells property for higher price
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiddelthon contracted to purchase property from Cox Land Trust (represented by Crowder) for $150,000. The trust failed to close the sale and subsequen…
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 Contract Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A land purchaser claims error in the amount of damages he was awarded in a breach of contract action. The seller cross-appeals claiming no contract.
The appellant William Royall Middelthon, Jr. claims he contracted to purchase property from Cox Land Trust (appellee Charles Crowder, beneficiary), for $150,000. The trust did not close and subsequently resold the property to a third party for $250,000. At the trial for breach of contract the jury was instructed:
If you find that the Defendant’s predecessor breached a contract with the Plaintiff, William Royall Middelthon, Jr., as trustee, for the sale of real property and subsequently sold the real property to another buyer, the plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the profit made by the seller in a sale to a subsequent purchaser. ...
If you find for Plaintiff, William Ro-yall Middelthon, Jr., as Trustee, on his claim, you are instructed the plaintiffs damages are in the principal sum of $100,000.00, less six and a half percent, as that sum was the difference between the $150,000.00 purchase price by plaintiff’s contract and $250,000.00 purchase price provided by the contract for subsequent sale to Howard Scharlin.. You need not determine the amount of prejudgment interest to be awarded as the court will fix this amount as determined by law.
The jury rendered its verdict in favor of Middelthon but for $42,887.00. Middelthon filed a motion to conform verdict, seeking judgment of $93,500, the amount provided by the trial court’s instruction on damages. Final judgment was subsequently entered awarding Middelthon $42,887.00. Middel-thon appeals the amount awarded. Crow-der cross-appeals claiming no binding contract.
On the main appeal we reverse with directions to the trial court to enter a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $93,-500.00 plus applicable interest. The jury having found a binding contract, the breach by the seller entitled the purchaser to damages in the amount benefited by the owner by the subsequent sale, Coppola Enterprises, Inc. v. Alfone, 531 So. 2d 334 (Fla.1988), by the virtue of the two contracts. The measure of damages upon the breach is fixed and the jury was not at liberty, as in an unliquidated situation to pick a figure, but were required to conform to the court’s instructions. AT & T Information Systems, Inc. v. Enterprises, A.B.C., Inc., 486 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, Enterprises, A.B.C., Inc. v. AT & T Information Systems, Inc., 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1986).
We find no merit in the cross-appeal. A binding real estate contract may be proven by a series of documents or instruments in writing. See Rohlfing v. Tomorrow Realty & Auction Co., Inc., 528 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Bader Brothers Transfer and Storage, Inc. v. Campbell, 299 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). There is no requirement that all parties, to be bound, have their signatures appear on the same instrument. Therefore, for the reasons above stated, we reverse with directions on the main appeal and affirm on the cross-appeal.
Affirmed in part.
Reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kolski v. Kolski, 731 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…, may be aggregated to satisfy the statute provided that the signed writing expressly or implicitly refers to the unsigned document.”. [*172] Cook v. Theme Park Ventures, Inc., 633 So. 2d 468, 471 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see also Middelthon v. Crowder, 563 So. 2d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Rohlfing v. Tomorrow Realty & Auction Co., Inc., 528 So. 2d 463, 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (holding real estate terms of sale together with buyer’s guide and check constituted sufficient writings to satisfy statute); First Guar…
-
Arthur v. Hillsborough Cnty. Bd. of Crim. Just., 588 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…988), had dismissed the appellant’s action against the Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice (the Board) pursuant to the Judicial Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).1 Arthur v. Hillsbor- [*237] ough County of Criminal Justice, 563 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The United States Supreme Court vacated our dismissal in Arthur in light of its previous published opinion in Howlett v. Rose, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990), disapproving this court’s construction of Hill in th…
-
Alverna Brown v. Jenne, 941 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…, 569 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1990), when it held that sovereign immunity does not bar section 1983 claims against municipalities in state courts. Howlett has also been applied to a county entity. In Arthur v. Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice, 563 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), vacated by 498 U.S. 801, 111 S.Ct. 27, 112 L.Ed.2d 6 (1990), the Second District dismissed Arthur’s section 1983 action against the Hillsborough County Board of Criminal Justice based on its earlier decision in Howlett and the Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Wayne H.L. Rohlfing v. Tomorrow Realty & Auction Co., Inc., 528 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Coppola Enters., Inc. v. Alfone, 531 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1988)
- Bader Bros. Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Campbell, 299 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- AT & T Info. Sys. Inc. v. Enterprises, 486 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)