R.P.M. ENTERPRISES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
BERTRAM MURPHY AND BARBARA MURPHY, 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.
R.P.M. Enterprises sought specific performance of a real estate purchase contract with the Murphys, who were to hold a purchase money mortgage. The trial court denied specific performance after finding that R.P.M. failed to provide required financial information despite extensions, and the appellate court affirmed because substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's factual findings.
The trial court properly denied specific performance because R.P.M. had not complied with its contractual obligation to provide satisfactory financial information, and substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's factual finding that R.P.M. failed to supply the required information.
[1] A party's failure to comply with a contractual requirement to provide satisfactory financial information may justify the denial of specific performance of a real estate c…
[2] A trial court's factual finding that a party failed to supply required financial information under a contract will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by competent su…
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 intelligence“If financial information not approved, contract will be voided and deposit returned.”
The contractual provision requiring R.P.M. to provide satisfactory financial information as a condition of the sale
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceR.P.M. Enterprises contracted to purchase real estate from the Murphys, with the Murphys holding a purchase money mortgage. The contract required R.P.…
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 Specific Performance Of Real Estate Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff R.P.M. Enterprises, Inc., appeals a final judgment denying specific performance of a real estate contract. We affirm.
R.P.M. Enterprises, Inc., entered into a contract to purchase real estate from appel-lees Bertram and Barbara Murphy, defendants below. The contract contained a clause requiring R.P.M. to provide additional financial information, since the Murphys were to hold a purchase money mortgage as part of the consideration for the sale of the Murphys’ real estate. The clause provided that “[i]f financial information not approved, contract will be voided and deposit returned.”
Construing the record in the light most favorable to the Murphys, who prevailed below, R.P.M. initially provided certain information which was not satisfactory to the Murphys. The Murphys specified the deficiencies and indicated a willingness to proceed with the transaction if the deficiencies were cured. Negotiations continued between the parties regarding the sufficiency of the financial information up to and beyond the date originally specified for the closing of the transaction. As that date approached, R.P.M. did not demand to close but on the contrary, continued to negotiate about the financial information. Approximately one month after the original closing date, and while the negotiations between the parties over the financial information were continuing, R.P.M. filed a suit demanding specific performance. The lawsuit proceeded to a bench trial and the court denied specific performance.
The trial court made a factual finding that R.P.M. had not supplied the financial information required under the contract. Construing the record favorably to the Murphys, the court concluded that the Mur-phys had extended the time for R.P.M. to provide the information, but R.P.M. had not complied. Contrary to R.P.M.’s contentions here, we conclude that there is substantial competent evidence in the record to support the trial court's finding. That being so, the judgment will not be disturbed on appeal. See Farrell v. Farrell, 555 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ren-Del Enterprises, Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“A finding of the trial court on disputed facts in a non-jury trial will not be disturbed by a reviewing court where the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence.”). As R.P.M. had not complied with its obligations under the contract, specific performance was properly denied. See Hooper v. Breneman, 417 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Emery v. Milton, 378 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anne J. Mazzella v. Greene, 802 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
-
Dade Cnty. Inv. Co. Inc. v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 733 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See R.P.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Murphy, 575 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).…
-
First Union Realty Inv. Corp. Under Fla. Land Tr. Agreement Dated July 8 v. Gillis, 894 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…tment Corp. appeals an order setting aside a foreclosure sale. The trial court entered its order after conducting an evidentiary hearing. As the order is supported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm. See R.P.M. Enterprises, Inc. v. Murphy, 575 So. 2d 1347, 1348 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Ren-Del Enterprises, Inc. v. Florida Keys First State Bank, 539 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Prater v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 866 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); U-M Publishing, Inc.…
Authorities Cited
- Tidwell v. The Southland Corp., 417 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Ren-Del Enters., Inc. v. Fla. Keys First State Bank, 539 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Farrell v. Adella Farrell, 555 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Yost v. Cong. Int'l Dev. Corp., 378 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- James D. Emery et ux. v. Milton, 378 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)