PETERSON HOMES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
KAREN RAY JOHNSON, 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.
Peterson Homes appeals from a trial court order dismissing its breach of contract claim, arguing that the court erroneously concluded the parties' real estate purchase agreement lacked consideration because the buyer failed to pay the earnest money deposit. The appellate court reversed, holding that the buyer's promise to pay constitutes sufficient consideration even if the deposit was never actually paid.
The court held that the buyer's promise to purchase the property on the date of closing created a binding executory contract with sufficient consideration, regardless of whether the earnest money deposit was actually paid. The contract validly provided for recovery of deposits paid or agreed to be paid.
[1] An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is generally not appealable, unless the dismissal is on the merits and cannot be corrected by amendment.
[2] A purchaser's promise to buy real property constitutes sufficient consideration to create a binding executory contract.
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“The consideration which creates a valid contract for the sale of real property is the purchaser's promise to pay.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a promise to pay, not actual payment, constitutes sufficient consideration for a real estate contract.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeterson Homes and Karen Ray Johnson entered into a contract for the sale of real property for $1.1 million, with Johnson agreeing to deposit $600,000…
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 Executory Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Peterson Homes, Ine., appeals from an order dismissing its breach of contract claim without prejudice. Ordinarily, an order dismissing a complaint without prejudice is not an appealable final or non-final order. Brown v. Housing Authority of Orlando, 680 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Welch v. Resolution Trust Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). See Fla.R.App.P. 9.110, 9.130. However, this order dismisses Peterson Homes’ claim because the “failure of the Defendant to pay the deposit constitutes lack of consideration necessary to create a binding contract.” This determination, if correct, is fatal to the breach of contract action, and the. perceived flaw cannot be corrected in an amended complaint. Because the order disposes of the cause on its merits, leaving no issues for judicial determination, it is sufficiently final to be reviewed by this court. Eagle v. Eagle, 632 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Peterson Homes and Appellee, Karen Ray Johnson (“Johnson”), entered into a contract for the sale of real property. Therein, Johnson agreed to pay $1.1 million for the property and to deposit $600,000 earnest money in escrow upon Peterson Homes’ acceptance of the contract. In addition, the contract contained a liquidated damages clause which provided that if Johnson failed to perform, Peterson Homes could retain all deposits paid and agreed to be paid.1 Johnson failed to make the deposit after the contract was accepted and failed to appear at the closing. Peterson Homes filed suit against Johnson for breach of contract, and a default was entered against her. Thereafter, Peterson Homes moved for a default judgment, seeking $600,000 in damages pursuant to the liquidated damages provision in the contract. However, the trial court concluded that since Johnson failed to pay the $600,000 deposit, the parties’ agreement lacked the consideration necessary to create a binding contract. We disagree.
The consideration which creates a valid contract for the sale of real property is the purchaser’s promise to pay. Parker v. Weiss, 404 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 468 (Fla.1982). In the instant case, Johnson’s promise to purchase the property on the date of closing created a binding executory contract which provided for the recovery of deposits paid or agreed to be paid. See Brecker v. Furman, 508 So. 2d 514, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA) (holding that “[i]t has been recognized that a contract may be drafted in such a manner as to allow the forfeiture not only of a deposit actually made but, in addition, a deposit that was agreed to be made”), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1987). No portion of the earnest money deposit had to be paid at the time the agreement was signed. Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding that no binding contract existed.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ANTOON, J., concurs.
PETERSON, C.J., concurs specially with opinion.
. Section S of the contract reads:
FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE:
If Buyer fails to perform this Contract within the time specified, including payments of all deposit(s), the deposit(s) paid by Buyer and deposits) agreed to be paid, may be retained by or for the account of Seller as agreed upon liquidated damages, consideration for the execution of this contract and in full settlement of any claims; whereupon Buyer and Seller shall be relieved of all obligations under this contract, (emphasis supplied).
PETERSON, Chief Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the majority and write only to add the caveat that the citation to Brecker should not be interpreted to mean that we have established as the law of the case that the $600,000 anticipated deposit is the amount of liquidated damages. That issue fully remains to be resolved. The decision made today merely confirms that the parties are bound by the terms of the contract even though the deposit was never paid by Johnson.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. David Kilcoyne Real Est. Grp., Inc., 791 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…re us at the preliminary venue stage, we need not determine whether Thomas's failure to pay the earnest money prevented the formation of a binding real estate contract that would support an action for its breach. See Peterson Homes, Inc. v. Johnson, 691 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).…
-
Wojcik v. Brooksville Reg'l Hosp., 765 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…recourse of the appellant was to bring an entirely different action. In the instant case, Wojcik is not faced with starting a new and different proceeding. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974); Peterson Homes, Inc. v. Johnson, 691 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Bushweiler v. Levine, 476 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); and SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. Dismissed. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.…
-
Markwood Invs. Ltd. v. Latam Invs., LLC, 201 So. 3d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ndant [name] .are dismissed. The court reserves jurisdiction to consider a timely motion for costs and attorney’s fees.’ ”). . The ambiguity in the order at issue is similar to the ambiguity in the order at issue in Peterson Homes, Inc. v. Johnson, 691 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 5th. DCA 1997). There, the appealed order dismissed a complaint without prejudice on the express basis that the plaintiffs cause of action for breach of contract was barred by the defendant’s failure to make a required deposit. Id. at 564. In…
Authorities Cited
- Welch v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 590 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Eagle v. Eagle, 632 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Parker v. Weiss, 404 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Manfred Brecker and Ann Brecker v. Furman, 508 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Sandy Point Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Chappell, 680 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)