DONALD L. HARRIS AND SANDRA K. HARRIS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
T.C. BROWN INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, THOMAS C. BROWN AND SANDRA E. BROWN, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 buyer and seller entered into a contract to purchase a home with a three-inch encroachment onto neighboring property, contingent on obtaining St. Lucie County's compliance notification. An escrow agreement required the seller to obtain county variances and homeowners association approvals within 12 months to allow the house to remain in place. The trial court found the seller complied, but the appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence that the seller obtained the necessary county documentation to satisfy the escrow agreement's requirements.
The court held that the seller failed to comply with the Escrow Agreement because there was insufficient evidence that the seller obtained official written documentation from St. Lucie County approving the encroachment. The county witness testified only that the county would not get involved in such a minor matter and offered a minor replat option, but there was no evidence this option was pursued or that the county ever approved the encroachment in writing.
[1] A party breaches an escrow agreement by failing to obtain all necessary variances or amendments from a governmental entity as required by the agreement.
[2] Compliance with an escrow agreement's terms requires obtaining official written documentation from a governmental entity approving a property encroachment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 Seller will have twelve months from the date of closing to obtain all necessary variances from St. Lucie County and/or amendments to the P.U.D. Agreement and getting appropriate deeds, easements, licenses or agreement from the B.T. Homeowners Association, such that the property to wit: the two story dwelling as depicted on the survey, may remain in its current location, and such that a standard ALTA Owner's Policy of Marketability can be issued without an exception for the encroachment.”
This quote establishes the explicit contractual obligations that the seller was required to fulfill under the Escrow Agreement, which serves as the basis for the court's analysis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn March 2008, Harris (Buyer) and Brown (Seller) contracted to purchase a house in Jensen Beach, Florida. A survey revealed the house extended three i…
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 Escrow Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants, Donald Harris and Sandra Harris (“Buyer”), appeal from a final judgment entered in favor of Appellees, T.C. Brown Investment Group, Inc., Thomas Brown and Sandra Brown (“Seller”). Because we find the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Seller had complied with the terms of the Escrow Agreement, we reverse the judgment entered in favor of Seller, and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Buyer on Buyer’s counterclaim for breach of contract.
In March of 2008, Buyer and Seller entered into a Contract for Sale and Purchase (“Contract”) of a house located in Jensen Beach, Florida. Before closing, the parties received a survey which showed the house extended three inches over the property line. The three inches extended onto a common area owned by the Bay Tree Homeowners Association. This common area also fell under the jurisdiction of St. Lucie County pursuant to a Planned Unit Development (“P.U.D.”) agreement. Presumably concerned about the encroachment issue, the parties hand-wrote on the Contract the following statement: “This contract is contingent on buyers obtaining notification from St. Lucie County for compliance of addition of rear patio and balcony.”
To further address this encroachment issue, Buyer and Seller signed an Escrow Agreement. Paragraph 3 of the Escrow Agreement provided:
The Seller will have twelve months from the date of closing to obtain all necessary variances from St. Lucie County *463and/or amendments to the P.U.D. Agreement and getting appropriate deeds, easements, licenses or agreement from the B.T. Homeowners Association, such that the property to wit: the two story dwelling as depicted on the survey, may remain in its current location, and such that a standard ALTA Owner’s Policy of Marketability can be issued without an exception for the encroachment.
The parties agreed to place $100,000, taken from the closing price, into an escrow account. This $100,000 was to be released to Seller if Seller provided the necessary documents, or released to Buyer if Seller failed to provide the necessary documents. Within a year, Seller obtained a perpetual easement from Bay Tree Homeowners Association; however, Seller never obtained official documentation from St. Lucie County which contained its approval of the encroachment. Based on this lack of documentation from St. Lucie County, the escrow agent never released the $100,000 to Seller. Seller subsequently filed a breach of contract claim against Buyer, while Buyer filed a breach of contract counterclaim against Seller. At trial, the court found in favor of Seller, finding Seller complied with the terms of the Escrow Agreement and finding Buyer was in breach of the Escrow Agreement.
We find the trial court’s final judgment was not supported by competent, substantial evidence because there was no evidence to support a conclusion that Seller had obtained “all necessary variances from St. Lucie County and/or amendments to the P.U.D. Agreement” such that St. Lucie County would allow the house to remain in its current location. See Siewert v. Casey, 80 So.3d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“So long as competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual findings, we will not in essence offer a second trial on appeal by re-weighing the evidence.”). The sole government witness from St. Lucie County, Mark Satterlee, the Planning and Development Director, never testified that the house could remain in its current location. Satterlee testified that to resolve the issue, the County “offered” a minor replat and changing of the lot lines, but there was no evidence that this was ever done. Satterlee’s testimony simply implied that St. Lucie County would not get involved with an issue this minor as it had “a lot bigger fish to fry.” Nonetheless, the County’s present “bigger fish to fry” does not mean the encroachment would be acceptable to St. Lucie County at some time in the future. Without providing written documentation from St. Lucie County approving the encroachment, which was clearly contemplated under both the Contract and Escrow Agreement, Seller failed to comply with the terms of the Escrow Agreement.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Buyer on Buyer’s counterclaim and for such further proceedings as necessary.
Reversed and remanded.
CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.