DAWN RIGBY HALLOCK BLISS, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT M. HALLOCK AND HIS WIFE, FRANCES WOODRUFF HALLOCK; JAMES M. HALLOCK, AND IF MARRIED, - HALLOCK, HIS WIFE; JANICE HALLOCK DAVIDSON AND HER HUSBAND, REVEREND DOCTOR - DAVIDSON; AND THOMAS P. HALLOCK, JR., 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.
In this specific performance case, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of specific performance but remanded for reconsideration of whether damages should be awarded for alleged breach of contract. The court reconciled conflicting language in the trial court's decree regarding dismissal and the plaintiff's right to pursue damages.
The court affirmed the denial of specific performance, finding no clear abuse of discretion by the trial court. However, the court remanded the case for further consideration of whether damages should be awarded for the alleged breach of contract by Thomas P. Hallock, Jr., reconciling the contradictory language in the trial court's decree.
“The granting or withholding of a decree for specific performance is a matter within the sound judicial discretion of a court of equity, controlled by settled principles of law and equity applicable to the particular facts, and the discretion of the chancellor in refusing specific performance of such a contract will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate challenges to denial of specific performance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sought specific performance against multiple defendants regarding what appears to be a real property or contract dispute. The trial cour…
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 Equitable Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff in an action for specific performance appeals from a final decree which denied her prayer for such relief. In order for her to be successful in this appeal, she must clearly demonstrate that the chancellor abused his discretion in refusing specific performance. Our court, in this regard, has stated in Robinson v. University of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 442, 444:
“The granting or withholding of a decree for specific performance is a matter within the sound judicial discretion of a court of equity, controlled by settled principles of law and equity applicable to the particular facts, and the discretion of the chancellor in re*891fusing specific performance of such a contract will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.”
.See also Humphrys v. Jarrell, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 404 and Perry v. Benson, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 213. A review of the record in this case in the light of the briefs and oral argument reveals a substantial basis for the finding of the chancellor that specific performance should be denied •under the equities established.
Under an assignment of error directing the attention of this court to the final decree as being erroneous upon its face, it is argued that the trial court should not have dismissed the cause as to Thomas P. Hal-lock, Jr. It appears that the court had jurisdiction of said defendant, a nonresident of this state, by a general appearance. The chancellor specifically provided in his decree:
"That the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance by the defendants or either of them, nor is the plaintiff entitled to other relief in this cause.”
However the chancellor also held:
“That this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice; except that this decree shall be without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to bring an action for damages against the defendant, Thomas P. Hallock, Jr.”
These holdings by the chancellor are in conflict and should be reconciled. Cf. Purcell v. Rothman, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 631, 632, which contains the following statement of the applicable rule of law:
“In a proper case where specific performance is sought by a purchaser, and for some reason is not granted, the court may proceed to determine that there was a breach of contract on the part of the seller and award damages to the purchaser. It is not mandatory that the court do so. But instances where such recovery is allowed are those in which there are equities which appear to the court to be sufficient to prompt such exercise of jurisdiction. See Chabot v. Winter Park Co., 34 Fla. 258, 15 So. 756, 759.”
Therefore the decree is affirmed as to the denial of specific performance, but the cause is remanded for further consideration of the equities involved and a determination of the propriety of entry of a judgment in this action for damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff because of the alleged breach of contract by defendant, Thomas P. Hallock, Jr.
Affirmed in part and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Platt A. Lasseter and Lora L. Lasseter v. Maxwell Dauer, 211 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…ion to dismiss, and remand the cause to the circuit court for consideration of award of damages if it is determined that defendants breached the contract. See Purcell v. Rothman, Fla.App. 1958, 99 So. 2d 631, 632, and Bliss v. Hallock, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 889, 891. In the Purcell case the court said: “In a proper case where specific performance is sought by a purchaser, and for some reason is not granted, the court may proceed to determine that there was a breach of contract on the part of the seller an…
-
Collins v. Moore and Opal Moore, 166 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…there existed such a binding contract between the parties, the question remains whether the plaintiffs have on appeal demonstrated abuse of the chancellor’s discretion in denying specific performance or an injunction. Bliss v. Holiock, Fla.App.1959, 113 So. 2d 889; Chabot v. Winter Park Co., 1894, 34 Fla. 258, 15 So. 756. When a contract calls for the rendition of services and it is so incomplete that its intended duration cannot be determined by a fair inference from its terms, either party is ordinarily en…
-
Free v. Free, 936 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…iously stated.2 The decision whether to decree specific performance of a contract is a matter that lies within the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and it will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous. Bliss v. Hallock, 113 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Martin v. Albee, 93 Fla. 941, 113 So. 415 (1927); Jordan v. Boisvert, 632 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Henderson Dev. Co. v. Gerrits, 340 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (citing Molina v. Reiss, 254 So. 2d 853 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Cilabot v. The Winter Park Co., 34 Fla. 258 (Fla. 1894)
- Robinson v. Univ. OF Miami, 100 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Schultz v. Nelen Flocked Foliages, Inc., 99 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Gale D. Perry v. Benson, 107 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)