HELEN E. WOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURA G. BOWDEN AND J. E. T. BOWDEN, HER HUSBAND, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision that denied a lessee the return of a $3,000 deposit after the lessors failed to provide abstracts showing good record title as required by their contract.
Yes, the lessors breached the contract by failing to provide the required abstracts. Therefore, the lessee is entitled to the return of the $3,000.00 paid.
“in the event that abstracts shall not show good record title as above provided, the lessee shall be entitled to receive back the above said sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) and thereupon both parties shall be discharged from any further obligation hereunder.”
This quote establishes the contractual condition for the return of the lessee's deposit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLessors and a lessee entered into a contract for a ninety-nine year lease. The lessee paid $3,000.00. The contract stipulated that lessors would furni…
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 Breach Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
— In a suit by the lessors to cancel a contract for a ninety-nine year lease of land on the ground that the lessee had breached the contract after a payment of $3,000.00, the court decreed for the cpmplainant lessors and denied as affirmative relief a return of the $3,000.00 paid by the lessee. By the contract, the lessors agreed ‘.‘to furnish complete abstracts of title showing good record *111title in and to the said property,” and that “in the event that abstracts shall not show good record title as above provided, the lessee shall be entitled to receive back the above said sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) and thereupon both parties shall be discharged from any further obligation hereunder.” The abstracts furnished by the lessors, even with the aid of Chapter 10171, Acts of 1925, do not show “good recordstitle” in either of the lessors (See Toomer v. Chancery, et al., 92 Fla. 458, 109 So. R. 641) though the title to the land may in fact be in one of them, therefore the lessors did not comply with the contract of lease signed by them and the lessee was not obliged to perform; and may recover the down payment in the absence of a countervailing equity.
Reversed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenn-Air Corp. v. City OF Palatka, 581 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…versal Equipment Co., 158 Fla. 644, 29 So. 2d 700 (1947); Rogers v. Standard Oil Co., 130 Fla. 674, 178 So. 427 (1938); Leslie E. Brooks Co. v. Long, 67 Fla. 68, 64 So. 452 (1914). .34 Fla.Jur.2d, Landlord-Tenant § 49 at 207 (1981); Wood v. Bowden, 100 Fla. 110, 129 So. 332 (1930).…
Authorities Cited
- Toomer v. Chancey, 92 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1926)