DAVID R. BUSCHMAN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
B.G. CLARK AND SHARON CLARK, 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.
Buschman appealed a judgment awarding sellers damages for breach of a real estate purchase contract. The court reversed, holding that damages must be measured by the difference between contract price and fair market value on the date of breach, not the foreclosure sale price, and that incidental damages like mortgage payments and insurance must have been contemplated by the parties.
The court held that the measure of damages for breach of a real estate sales contract is the difference between the contract sales price and the fair market value on the date of breach, not the subsequent foreclosure price. Additional damages must be alleged and proved to have been contemplated by the parties and must be a natural and proximate result of the breach. Since fair market value equaled the contract price, damages would be zero; the Clarks' only remedy would be liquidated damages from Buschman's $2,000 deposit.
[1] The measure of damages for breach of a real estate sales contract is the difference between the contract sales price and the fair market value of the property on the date…
[2] Incidental damages for breach of a real estate sales contract must be alleged and proved to have been contemplated by the parties and must be a natural and proximate resu…
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“the measure of damages for breach of a real estate sales contract is the difference between the contract sales price and the fair market value of the property on the date of the breach.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for calculating damages in real estate contract breaches.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBuschman agreed to purchase the Clarks' residence for $59,000 but breached the contract. The Clarks subsequently lost the property to foreclosure, sel…
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 Incidental Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
CAWTHON, Senior Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment awarding the sellers, B.G. and Sharon Clark, $5,553.40 which is the difference between the parties’ $59,000.00 contract sale price of the Clarks’ residence and the ulti mate $53,446.60 sale price of the residence at foreclosure.
The trial court additionally awarded the Clarks $2,036.11 for their incidental damages accruing after purchaser David R. Buschman, Jr.’s breach of contract. The damages include three mortgage payments totaling $1,527.72; association fees paid in the amount of $101.39; and hazard insurance premiums of $407.00.
The trial court offset the amount of damages by the $1,217.25 for damages previously paid to the seller. Purchaser Buschman raises several issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. Buschman contends that the court erred in calculating “actual damages” by comparing the contract sale price to the foreclosure sale price and by adding thereto the mortgage payments, insurance premiums, and associations dues paid subsequent to appellant’s failure to purchase the property as required by the contract.
We agree and reverse the trial court’s final order. In Zipper v. Affordable Homes, Inc., 461 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), rev. dismissed, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1985), we held that the measure of damages for breach of a real estate sales contract is the difference between the contract sales price and the fair market value of the property on the date of the breach. All additional damages must be alleged and proved to have been contemplated by the parties and must be a natural and proximate result of the breach. Id. at 989.
In the case at bar, the sales price of the property was $59,000.00. Several months after the contract was breached, the lender foreclosed on the mortgage and received a final judgment of foreclosure. The seller testified that the fair market value of the property at the time of the foreclosure was still equal to the contract price of $59,000.00.
Pursuant to Zipper, the amount of damages proved would be zero. Although the foreclosure damages, insurance, association dues, and mortgage payments may have been alleged or proved to have resulted from the breach, there is no allegation or evidence that they were ever contemplated by the parties as required by Zipper. The Clarks would be entitled to Buschman’s $2,000 deposit as liquidated damages if they exercised that option.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to the trial court to award the Clarks damages equal to the $1,217.251 they previously received.
ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur. . The difference between the $2,000 deposit and the $1,217.25 awarded was previously disbursed to pay attorney’s fees and costs in an interpleader action and an appraiser’s fee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions-Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013)…being in such cases [where the buyer breaches the contract] the difference between the agreed purchase price and the actual value of the property at the time of the breach of the contract of purchase, less the amount paid.”). 2. Buschman v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he measure of damages for breach of a real estate sales contract is the difference between the contract sales price and the fair market value of the property on the date of the breach. All additional damages must be all…
-
DePRINCE v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc., 163 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…at product and the price of the product as specified in the repudiated contract. § 672.713, Fla. Stat. (2013); A & P Bakery Supply & Equip. Co. v. Hawatmeh, 388 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); U.C.C. § 2-713 (2002); see also Buschman v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 799, 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (applying the same rule to real estate). This damage calculation serves to vindicate the buyer’s expectation interest by placing him in the same position in which he would have been had the contract been executed as agreed.…
-
Wiborg v. Eisenberg, 671 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…iately ordered. We affirm all other issues raised by Wiborg. On cross-appeal, the Eisenbergs contend that the trial court erred in refusing to grant damages incident to specific performance. The trial judge, basing his finding on Buschman v. Clark, 583 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), found that the Eisenbergs were not entitled to special damages which had not been pled with specificity as such damages were not contemplated by the parties nor a natural or proximate result of any alleged breach. The trial cour…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zipper v. Affordable Homes, Inc., 461 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)