FINANCIAL VENTURE CONSULTANTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
NORTH SHORE REALTY CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Financial Venture Consultants sought specific performance of an agreement with North Shore Realty to develop a 500-room hotel on the defendant's property. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, finding the written memoranda lacked essential terms necessary for specific performance, and the appellate court affirmed.
The written memoranda were not sufficient in detail to justify a specific performance decree. The trial court properly dismissed the complaint on the pleadings because the exhibits were so lacking in essential and substantive features as to be incapable of specific performance.
“The written memoranda were not sufficient in detail to justify a specific performance decree.”
States the core holding that the agreement lacked essential terms required for 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 parties entered into written memoranda and addenda whereby appellant was to secure financing, engineering and architectural drawings, and permits …
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 Motion For Summary Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the appellant’s complaint for specific performance.
The parties herein entered into certain written memoranda and addendum thereto, whereby the appellant was to secure financing, engineering, architectural and mechanical drawings, and permits necessary to construct a 500 room hotel on property owned by the appellee. The appellant allegedly accomplished the foregoing and the appellee allegedly breached their agreement by refusing to permit the appellant to go forward with construction of the hotel. *507As a result, the appellant brought the instant suit seeking specific performance. The appellee answered, moved for a summary judgment and a judgment on the pleadings. After hearing on the motions, the trial court found the exhibits attached to the complaint were so lacking in the essential or substantive features of an agreement as to be incapable of specific performance. As a result thereof, the trial court entered the final judgment of dismissal appealed herein. We affirm.
The written memoranda were not sufficient in detail to justify a specific performance decree. See: Wolfson v. Moye, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 629. The appellant also urges that the trial court erred in refusing its motion to amend. We fail to find any ruling by the trial court on this point; therefore it is not preserved for review. Jones v. Neibergall, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 918; Beaty v. Beaty, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 54; Radiation, Inc. v. Campbell, Fla. App.1967, 200 So.2d 192; 2 Fla.Jur., Appeals, § 287.
The appellant has attempted, in argument, to contend the trial court should have retained the matter to determine damages, if any, which might have been recovered by the plaintiff. However, no request for such was made in the trial court, no order was entered thereon, and no assignment of error was directed to this matter. Therefore, we find this argument to be without merit on this appeal. Jones v. Neibergall, supra; Vaughn v. Smith, Fla. 1957, 96 So.2d 143; Williams v. Williams, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 488; Beaty v. Beaty, supra; Snead v. Le Jeune Road Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 179; Radiation, Inc. v. Campbell, supra; 2 Fla. Jur., Appeals, §§ 117, 287.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the final judgment here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fin. Venture Consultants, Inc. v. N. Shore Realty Co., 225 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 218 So. 2d 506.…
-
Brickell Biscayne Corp. v. The Palace Condo. Ass'n, 526 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…or the first time on appeal. Cowart v. City of West Palm Beach, 255 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1971); Mariani v. Schleman, 94 So. 2d 829 (Fla.1957); Jones v. Neibergall, 47 So. 2d 605 (Fla.1950); Financial Venture Consultants, Inc. v. North Shore Realty Corp., 218 So. 2d 506 (Fla.3d DCA 1969). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Vaughn v. Smith, 96 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1957)
- Beaty v. Beaty, 177 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Bell Williams v. Williams, 172 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Radiation, Inc. v. Campbell, 200 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- Wolfson v. Moye, 214 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Snead v. LE Jeune Rd. Hosp., Inc., 196 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)