MARY DOLORES CHARBONIER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOSEPH ARBONA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
A Florida property seller contracted to sell land to a buyer with a warranty of 'good clear record title.' After specific performance was decreed, the buyer sued claiming the seller breached the title warranty by failing to account for paving expenses that became a lien on the property after the contract was made. The court held that such post-contract statutory liens imposed by law were not contemplated by the warranty and reversed judgment for the buyer.
The warranty of title in the contract did not extend to paving expenses and liens imposed by operation of law after the contract was made, as such improvements were not contemplated by the contract's terms and fell outside the scope of the warranty.
“The contract clearly contemplated "a warranty deed conveying a good clear recprd title to said property," "at any time during the life of this said option," meaning during the time within which the contract of sale was to be consummated by a conveyance for a stated price, which had no reference to later improvements enforced by law.”
Establishes that the warranty of title was limited to the time of contract execution and did not contemplate post-contract statutory improvements or liens.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Dolores Charbonier entered into a contract on March 2, 1910, granting Joseph Arbona an option to purchase her property in Pensacola for $4,900, w…
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 Breach Of Warranty Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
The plaintiff in error made the following contract for the sale of land: “State of Florida, County of Escambia.
Received of Mr. Jos. Arbona the sum of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, for which I grant him an option to purchase my property situated on the Northwest corner of Terrago and Intendencia Streets, upon which is my building (Two Story Brick),-now occupied by him. Said option to hold good for a period of sis (6) months from date hereof, and I hereby promise and agree to convey the said property to him at any time during the life of this said option upon the further payment to me in cash of Forty-nine Hundred ($4900.00) Dollars, guaranteeing to give him a warranty deed conveying a good clear record title to said property. Witness my hand and seal this 2nd day of March, A. D. 1910. (Signed) 'Miss-M.
D. Charbonier. (Seal)
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: Emil E. Pheiffer, S.
J. Isaacs.”
Miss Charbonier resisted the enforcement of the contract on the ground of the inadequacy of the purchase price and her inesperience in business. But specific performance was decreed to be enforced. Charbonier v. Arbona, 63 Fla. 384, 57 South. Rep.
887. The decree for specific performance was treated as a conveyance under the contract to sell and convey. Subsequently Arbona brought an action against the vendor to recover as for a breach of warranty of title, certain paving expenses imposed as a lien upon the property between the making of the contract of sale and the actual passing of title under the decree of specific performance. There was judg ment for the vendee and the vendor took writ of error. The contract clearly contemplated “a warranty deed conveying a good clear recprd title to said property,” “at any time during the life of this said option,” meaning during the time within which the contract of sale was to be consummated by a conveyance for a stated price, which had no reference to later improvements enforced by law. The claim here asserted r is for an improvement to the property put upon it by operation of law after the price was agreed on, and does not come within tbe intent of the contract, as shown by its terms, and is not included within the warranty of title. Equity courts take this view. See Gotthelf v. Stranahan, 138 N. Y. 345, 34 N.
E. Rep. 286, 20 L.
R. A.
455. Law courts may enforce the intent of a contract as shown by its terms and the circumstances under which it was made. The judgment is reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pembroke v. The Peninsular Terminal Co., 108 Fla. 46 (Fla. 1933)…nt are not usually regarded as an incumbrance within the meaning of the rule above stated. Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Building Corp. 169 N. Y. Sipp. 1045; 183 App. Div. (N. Y.) 225; 229 N. E. 313; 128 N. E. Rep. 209. See also Carbonier v. Arbona, 68 Fla. 194, 67 South. Rep. 41.” In McCaskill v. Union Naval Stores Co. 59 Fla. 571, 52 So. 561, it was held that provisions of law applicable to the subject matter of contracts, are parts of the contracts, whether so expressed or referred to in the contract o…
-
Wheeler v. Sullivan, 90 Fla. 711 (Fla. 1925)…t are not usually regarded as an incumbrance within the meaning of the rule above stated. Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams Building Corp., 169 N. Y. Supp. 1045; 183 App. Div. (N. Y.) 225; 229 N. Y. 313; 128 N. E. Rep. 209. See also Carbonier v. Arbona, 68 Fla. 194, 67 South. Rep. 41. Under the rule above announced, the allegations of the bill of complaint were sufficient as against the demurrer1 interposed. It was therefore error to sustain the demurrer. Reversed. Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J. J.…
-
Dee v. S. Brewing Co., 146 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1941)…n stated in the third count of the declaration. These infirmities rendered the declaration susceptible to demurrer. See Faulk v. Salario, et al., 108 Fla. 135, 146 Sou. 193; Livingston v. Malever, 103 Fla. 200, 137 Sou. 113; Todd v. L. & N. R. Co., 68 Fla. 194, 67 Sou. 41. The case of Fancher v. Ramsey, et al., 121 Fla. 631, 164 Sou. 688, is not contrary to this view but sustains .it. In that case the holding was that the allegations of the amended declaration did not constitute a departure in pleading.…
Authorities Cited
- Charbonier v. Arbona, 63 Fla. 384 (Fla. 1912)