MINNIE L. KINGSTON, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SARAH F. BOONE, 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.
Kingston sought specific performance of a real estate purchase contract with Boone. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint because the property description in the contract was too vague and could not be identified without parol evidence, which is inadmissible in contract interpretation.
A contract for the sale of real estate cannot be specifically enforced when the property description does not identify the land with reasonable certainty and would require parol evidence to identify it. The description of land is an essential part of the agreement and must be sufficiently certain in the writing itself.
“specific performance will not be enforced where the contract does not designate with certainty the lands to be conveyed, and that parol proof is inadmissible to supply a description of the land not identified in the writing”
Establishes the fundamental rule that contracts for real estate must contain a certain description of the property without resort to parol evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKingston sued for specific performance of an alleged contract to purchase real estate from Boone. The property was described in the contract as locate…
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 Parol Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The appeal in this case is from a final decree dismissing the bill of complaint.
Suit was for Specific Performance of an alleged contract for the purchase and sale of real estate.
A decree was entered after testimony had been taken. The description contained in the contract is in the following words to-wit: “The............or parcel of ground, situated in the County of Orange, State oO’lorida, known and described as follows, to-wit: \
As the Boones Revision of the City of Orlando, Fla., consisting of two or more acres on which are two frame dwellings, said property facing on Irvin St., Grace St., and Macey St.”
There is no proof of delivery of the property to the proposed purchaser. In the case of Rhode v. Gallet, 70 Fla. 536, 70 South. Rep. 471, this Court held:
“It is also well settled that specific performance will not be enforced where the contract does not designate with certainty the lands to be conveyed, and that parol proof is inadmissible to supply a description of the land not identified in the writing. The description of the land to be conveyed is one of the most essential parts of an agreement to sell. Such contract must be in writing, and must contain such description of the land either in terms or by reference, that the property may be identified without fesort to parol evidence; and specific performance will not be decreed of any agreement, unless the parties have described the land to be conveyed in their agreement, or unless it furnishes the means by which it can be identified with reasonable certainty. ’ ’
Upon authority of the opinion in the case above cited the judgment in the instant ease should be affirmed. And it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur;
Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Style Furniture, Inc. v. Ennella, 289 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Orlando Realty Board Bldg. Corporation v. Hilpert, 93 Fla. 954, 113 So. 100 (1927); Kington v. Boone, 92 Fla. 560, 109 So. 580 (1926).…
Authorities Cited
- Rhode v. Gallat, 70 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1915)