GEORGE B. GLAVE AND JANE F. GLAVE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARL R. BRANDLEIN AND DORCAS BRANDLEIN, 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.
In a specific performance action for breach of a real estate sales contract, the court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the vendees' complaint, holding that vendees seeking specific performance must prove payment, tender, readiness to pay, or excuse from payment of the purchase price.
To obtain specific performance of a real estate sales contract, a vendee must prove that the vendee has either: (a) paid the balance due, (b) tendered such balance, (c) been ready, willing and able to pay such balance, or (d) been excused from such performance. The vendees here failed to establish any of these prerequisites.
“in order for a vendee to obtain specific performance of a real estate sales contract by a vendor, the vendee must allege and prove that the vendee has either: a. paid the balance due... b. tendered such balance... c. been ready, willing and able to pay such balance... or d. been excused from such performance.”
The court states the controlling legal rule for specific performance of real estate contracts, establishing the four-part test the vendee must satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Glaves contracted to purchase land from the Brandleins. When the Brandleins refused to convey, the Glaves sued for specific performance of the con…
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 Equity Principles cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendants contracted to sell certain land to plaintiffs. When defendants refused to convey, the plaintiffs sued in chancery to force defendants as vendors to specifically perform their contract.
The chancellor found that plaintiffs as vendees had failed to tender the balance *781of the purchase price ($37,000) and thereupon entered a final decree in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Going straightway to the disposi-tive law of the case, we say that, in order for a vendee to obtain specific performance of a real estate sales contract by a vendor, the vendee must allege and prove that the vendee has either:
a. paid the balance due, Shouse v. Doane, 1897, 39 Fla. 95, 21 So. 807;
b. tendered such balance, White v. Cohn, 1939, 137 Fla. 501, 188 So. 581;
c. been ready, willing and able to pay such balance, 330 Michigan Avenue, Inc. v. Cambridge Hotel, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 725; or
d. been excused from such performance. Haimovitz v. Robb, 1937, 130 Fla. 844, 178 So. 827.
See also the unvarying encyclopedic treatment of this general rule stated in 29 Fla.Jur., Specific Performance, §§ 31, 107, 126, and 130; 49 Am.Jur., Specific Performance, §§ 40, 143, 161; 22 F.L.P., Specific Performance, §§ 13, 18; 81 C.J.S. Specific Performance, §§ 95, 131.
The kernel of this dispute is disclosed by the single appeal point framed by appellant:
■“Is it a condition precedent to the enforcement by specific performance of contract to sell property, where the Seller has failed to deliver an abstract or offer a policy of title insurance as required by the contract, that the Purchaser make a cash tender ?”
Our answer is simple and constitutes a mere re-statement of the already mentioned general rule. As a condition precedent to specific performance the seeking purchaser must either pay the contract sum; tender it; establish that he is ready, willing and able to do so; or establish that he has been excused from so doing. It would be an anomaly indeed, under equity principles, for a vendee to ask a court to judicially require a vendor to remedy his defaults and perform his covenants by conveying title to vendee when there is no showing on the part of such vendee that he has paid or tendered the contract price as covenanted or that he is willing and has the ability to do so.
By way of hindsight survey, appellant should have done equity by either tendering the purchase price balance or properly showing his willingness and present ability to do so. This would serve to place the vendor in default and entitle the vendee to specific performance.
Appellants assert, though, that they were legally ready, willing and able to pay the balance of the purchase price. Looking at their complaint, we see an allegation that they “were ready and willing to comply with the terms of said contract” (while not essential or controlling, it is interesting that the customary word “able” was omitted, particularly in light of the testimony and strong inferences to the effect that vendees did not have the cash and were attempting to obtain financing with no showing of success during the various negotiation and contract stages). Looking at the record, we did not see any evidence whatever in support of appellants’ material allegation that they were ready and willing to pay the purchase price. The only direction offered us in this regard by appellants was to point to a certain letter written to vendors’ attorney. We carefully examined the item and do not find any help there for appellants’ position.
Plaintiffs have failed to establish their right to relief and to show that the court’s exercise of discretion in the premises was contrary to law. Martin v. Albee, 1927, 93 Fla. 941, 113 So. 415.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, WILLIAM C., and WHITE, JOSEPH S., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Hollywood Mall, Inc. v. Capozzi, 545 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…s transaction, such ability is nowhere present in this record. And it is the burden of proof of the plaintiff to show it is ready, willing and able to perform the contract to establish a prima facie case for specific performance. Glare v. Brandlein, 196 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967). What must the purchaser show to prove that he was “ready, willing, and able” to perform the contract? In Perper v. Edell, 160 Fla. 477, 35 So. 2d 387 (1948) the Supreme Court stated that “(Financially) ‘able’ means that the pro…
-
Taylor v. Richards, 971 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (stating that it is [*130] the plaintiffs’ burden of proof to show they are ready, willing and able to perform the contract in order to establish a prima facie case for specific performance) (citing Glare v. Brandlein, 196 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)). In Capozzi, this court applied the following test for determining whether a purchaser is ready, willing and able to buy: Generally speaking, a purchaser is financially ready and able to buy: (1) If he has the needed cash in h…
-
Wilson v. Odom, 215 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)…ng on the doctrine of anticipatory breach. His contention that the appellee’s unequivocal refusal to close on November 4, 1965, prior to that date is overcome by his failure to show ability to pay the purchase price on that date. Glave v. Brandlein, 196 So. 2d 780 (Fla.App.4th 1967). However, another and more availing question is raised by the letter of ap-pellee’s attorney that confirmed the November 4 closing but also included a requirement or demonstrated an intent on the part of the appellee to close onl…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin v. Albee, 93 Fla. 941 (Fla. 1927)
- Shouse v. Doane, 39 Fla. 95 (Fla. 1897)
- Haimovitz v. Robb, 130 Fla. 844 (Fla. 1937)
- 330 Mich. Ave., Inc. v. Cambridge Hotel, Inc., 183 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)
- White v. Cohn, 137 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1939)
- Mayflower Inv. Co. v. Brill, 131 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1938)