ELLIS SATCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
DERRICK V. VAN BRODE, 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.
A defaulting purchaser cannot recover an earnest money deposit when the contract for the purchase of real property fails to contain a liquidated damages provision, absent applicable exceptions.
A buyer sued for the return of an earnest money deposit after a purchase agreement failed. The seller counterclaimed for damages for breach. The contr…
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 Earnest Money Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff-appellee Van Brode (“Buyer”) sued defendant-appellant Satchell (“Seller”) for return of a $500.00 earnest money deposit on a written purchase-sale agreement for a residence owned by the Seller for $28,000.00. The Seller counterclaimed for damages for breach of the agreement. A final judgment in a non-jury trial awarded the Buyer his $500.00 earnest money deposit and denied recovery on the Seller’s counterclaim.
The contract, which was not drafted by an attorney, contained no provisions for what was to be the disposition of the deposit in the event of a breach.
The instant appeal presents the following threshold question: Where a contract for the purchase of real property fails to contain a liquidated damages provision, may the defaulting purchaser recover his $500.00 earnest money deposit? We express the view that the' case is governed by the following rule, which is stated in Beatty v. Flannery, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 81, 82:
“It is well settled that, even in the absence of such a forfeiture provision, a vendee in default is hot entitled to recover from the vendor money paid in part performance of an executory contract.” (Citations omitted.)
Accord: Haas v. Crisp Realty Co., Fla. 1953, 65 So.2d 765, 768-769. We note that there are exceptions to the rule quoted, and they are adequately discussed in the cases cited; the exceptions do not apply here.
The appellant Seller contends that an adverse judgment on his counterclaim is erroneous. Here, the court sat without a jury and determined the facts, and his findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness. Reversible error not having been demonstrated, that portion of the final judgment is affirmed.
For the reasons stated, that portion of the final judgment awarding $500.00 to the plaintiff-appellee Van Brode, the buyer, is reversed.
Reversed in part and affirmed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DELTA Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Ehmann, 275 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…ent was for the plaintiff and this appeal ensued. We affirm. Ordinarily, a purchaser in default cannot recover a deposit. Beatty v. Flannery, Fla.1950, 49 So. 2d 81; Williams v. Crouch, Fla.1966, 186 So. 2d 491; Satchell v. Van Brode, Fla.App.1971, 248 So. 2d 245. And, where time is of the essence in a contract, no notice of default is required. Baroudi v. Hales, Fla.App. 1957, 98 So. 2d 515; Herrera Y Nogueira v. Helker, Fla.App.1962, 139 So. 2d 895. However, there are exceptions to this rule. Beatty v. Fla…
-
C. O. Condos., Inc. v. Dickinson, 301 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…dors to prove the damages suffered by reason of the breach of the contract. Since the vendors did not claim they suffered any damages, the court affirmed the chancellor in ordering the return of the deposit. Satchell v. Van Brode, Fla.App.3rd, 1971, 248 So. 2d 245, can be distinguished because the earnest money deposit forfeited in that case was so small as to make an unjust enrichment contention de minimis. In a cross-appeal, the purchaser complains of the court’s refusal to award him interest on the deposi…
-
Ruiz v. Huddle, 420 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…orp. v. Cayre, 256 So. 2d 539 (Fla.3d DCA 1972). When the contracts do not provide for disposition of a down payment, a purchaser in default may not recover the amount paid on the executory contract, absent certain exceptions. Satchell v. Van Brode, 248 So. 2d 245 (Fla.3d DCA 1971), citing Beatty v. Flannery, supra. One of the exceptions noted in Beatty is the inability without fault to fulfill the conditions of the contract. Appellants failed to demonstrate such inability. We are not inclined to apply a dif…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Beatty v. Flannery, 49 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1950)
- Haas et ux. v. Crisp Realty Co., 65 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1953)