HERBERT FOSKEY, APPELLANT,

v.

KIMBERLY FOSKEY AND LARRY COOK, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• King v. Bray, 867 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
  …pecific performance may be denied when a contract is unenforceable because, based on an ambiguity in the contract, the parties never reached a meeting of the minds regarding an essential term of the agreement. See Cavallaro v. Stratford Homes, Inc., 784 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Allen v. Berry, 765 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1183 (Fla.2001). Regarding the issue whether the contract is ambiguous, the underlying rationale of the argument presented by the Kings is that 38 U.S…
• India Am. Trading Co., Inc. v. White, 896 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
  …ntract to purchase real property. “Pursuant to the statute [of frauds], no action can be brought to enforce a contract for the sale of land unless the contract is in writing and signed by the party to be charged.” Cavallaro v. Stratford Homes, Inc., 784 So. 2d 619, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). See also § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2004); Alvarez v. Alvarez, 800 So. 2d 280, 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 828 So. 2d 384 (Fla.2002). Therefore, even if White had orally agreed to sell the real property to India Ameri…
• Leopold v. Kimball Hill Homes Fla., Inc., 842 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
  …of the contract does not affect the validity of the contract or indicate the minds of the parties did not meet with respect thereto.” 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 31. The trial court, as well as Kimball Hill, relied on Cavallaro v. Stratford Homes, Inc., 784 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), to conclude that there was no meeting of the minds as to the completed price and the type of home to be constructed. However, that reliance is misplaced. In Caval-laro, the parties had executed a lot reservation agreement as to…

  ← 1 / 3 →