MORRIS LEVENE AND SELMA LEVENE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ENCHANTED LAKE HOMES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND ELLIOT STANFORD, 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.
Homebuyers appealed the dismissal of their equity complaint seeking specific performance and accounting for breach of a construction contract. The court affirmed the transfer of the case to the law side, holding that specific performance is inappropriate for construction contracts and that law court remedies are adequate.
The court affirmed the transfer to the law side of court. Specific performance is not an appropriate remedy for construction contracts, and a court of law can provide full and adequate relief through damages or return of the deposit without the need for equitable jurisdiction.
“construction contracts are not usually susceptible to the remedy of specific performance”
Establishes the general rule that specific performance is an inappropriate remedy for construction contracts, which is the core basis for denying plaintiffs' requested relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs contracted with the defendant builder to construct a house. The plaintiffs made a substantial deposit, which the defendant claimed was …
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 Accounting cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff brings this interlocutory appeal to review the following order in a chancery cause:
“This cause coming on this day to be heard, after due notice, upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to transfer to the law side-of the Court, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being fully advised in the premises, it is, thereupon,
“Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that Defendant’s Motion be and the same is hereby granted, and Plaintiffs-may file, within twenty days from date,, such pleadings as they may be advised in the lav/ side of the Court.
“It Is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the lis pendens filed by Plaintiffs April 8, 1959 in Official Records Book 1357, page 277, in the office of the Clerk of this Court against the property therein described be and the same is hereby cancelled, and the Clerk of this Court is hereby directed to discharge same of record.”
The complaint in equity was for specific performance and an accounting. The contract sought to be specifically enforced was one whereby the defendant, a builder, agreed to construct a house for the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had made a substantial deposit which the defendant claimed was forfeited.
The granting of the remedy of specific performance is generally a matter within the sound judicial discretion of the chancellor. See Robinson v. University of Miami, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 442, and cases cited therein. Further, construction contracts are not usually susceptible to the remedy of specific performance. See cases cited at 9 Am.Jur., Building and Construction Contracts, § 124; 81 C.J.S. Specific Performance § 74; 164 A.L.R. 802 et seq. Cf. Calumet Co. v. Oil City Corporation, 114 Fla. 531, 154 So. 141. No violation of the settled principles of law and equity have been demonstrated in the denial of the remedy in this case.
Appellants contend the cause should remain in equity for an accounting. *91We recognize the rule that even if a court •of law can compel the payment of damages for a breach of contract, a court of equity will still entertain jurisdiction if there are •complicated accounts involved in order to give adequate relief. Sommers v. Apalachicola Northern R. Co., 75 Fla. 159, 78 So. 25. An examination of the complaint reveals that a court of law can provide full and adequate relief in the instant case should plaintiffs establish their right to return of the deposit paid, and damages, if so entitled.
Construing the order quoted as a transfer to the law side of the court pursuant to Rule 1.39(a) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A.,1 it is therefore, affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bigman v. Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables, 170 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)….J.S. Vendor & Purchaser § 4, p. 838; Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 1A, pages 498, 579. While it is true that specific performance is not a matter of right but discretionary with the chancellor, [see: Levene v. Enchanted Lakes Homes, Inc., Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 89; Mills v. Beims, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 228] failure to award specific performance in the instant case constituted an abuse of judicial discretion. Due to the option agreement involved herein, the only manner in which the appellee could obtain ade…
-
Mortg. Servicing Co. of Fla. v. Cassady, 21 Fla. Supp. 131 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1962)…court so finds, unconscionable, under the facts and circumstances here, to specifically enforce the contract in question against the Cassadys. Robinson v. University of Miami, Fla.App., 100 So. 2d 442; Levine v. Enchanted Lake Homes, Inc., Fla.App., 115 So. 2d 89; 29 Fla.Jur., Specific Performance, §8, et seq. By the same token, under the evidence here, the Cassadys are entitled to have the contract in question cancelled. And the court so finds. [*134] As previously noted, it is to be emphasized that these f…
Authorities Cited
- The Calumet Co. v. Oil City Corp., 114 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1934)
- Sommers v. Apalachicola N. R.R. Co., 75 Fla. 159 (Fla. 1918)
- Robinson v. Univ. OF Miami, 100 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)