GEORGE C. GRIMSLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE INVERRARY RESORT HOTEL, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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.
The acceptance of the return of a deposit, as provided for in a mortgage finance rider, bars the buyer from seeking any additional relief from the seller.
Appellant contracted to purchase a condominium and paid a deposit. The seller declined to finance the purchase under a rider that allowed this discret…
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 Return Of Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant signed a contract to purchase a condominium, giving a deposit of $1,000. When he was unable to secure bank financing, he sought financing from the seller of the condominium, the appellee, pursuant to a mortgage finance rider attached to the sales contract. That rider gave the seller the discretion to decline to finance, based on credit worthiness. It further provided that if the seller declined to finance, appellant could either buy the unit with cash or cancel the contract by accepting the return of his deposit.
The seller declined to finance and offered appellant the return of his deposit, which appellant accepted. Appellant subsequently brought this lawsuit, which the trial court eventually disposed of by granting the seller’s motion for summary judgment.
Under the contract, appellant, if there was a default by the seller, had the right to seek specific performance or the return of his deposit. The contract further provided that upon return of the deposit, seller would have no other liability to appellant. We affirm the summary judgment, concluding that appellant’s acceptance of the return of his deposit bars him from seeking any additional relief.
KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bates v. Neuropsychological Assocs. OF Cent. Fla., Inc., 806 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Having considered the appellant’s response to the order to show cause, we hereby dismiss this appeal .as premature because the order appealed is a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Meissner v. Moore, 770 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Augustin v. Blount, 573 So. 2d 104, 105 [*637] (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Odham v. Mouat, 484 So. 2d 95, 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). DISMISSED. KAHN, VAN NORTWICK and LEWIS, JJ., concur.…