FONACT CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SUPERIOR APARTMENTS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
Fonact Corp. appealed a declaratory judgment upholding an easement agreement that granted Superior Apartments' tenants access to Fonact's swimming pool. The court affirmed, holding that Fonact was estopped from terminating the agreement due to its course of conduct accepting late monthly payments, and rejecting arguments that the agreement violated the rule against perpetuities.
The trial court correctly held that Fonact was estopped from asserting forfeiture due to its acceptance of late payments over many months, and the rule against perpetuities does not apply to agreements coupled with an interest in the land. The court declined to determine whether the agreement was perpetual, as such a determination was unnecessary to resolve the appeal.
[1] A party may be estopped from asserting the forfeiture of an agreement due to late payments when the party has consistently accepted late payments over an extended period.
[2] An agreement granting the right to use another's property, which is deemed coupled with an interest and runs with the land, is generally not voided by the rule against pe…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The trial judge held that the plaintiff was estopped to assert the forfeiture of the agreement because he had, over a period of many months, accepted payments a few days late.”
Establishes the estoppel doctrine that prevented strict enforcement of the monthly payment deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuperior Apartments purchased an apartment house from Fonact's predecessor and received an 'Easement Agreement' granting tenants access to Fonact's sw…
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 Rule Against Perpetuities cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was the plaintiff in an action for declaratory judgment. It sought a declaration that it had properly terminated an agreement between the parties by which appellee was granted the right to have ap-pellee’s tenants use appellant’s swimming pool. This appeal is from a judgment declaring the agreement valid and holding that appellant’s attempt to cancel the agreement was not effective.
The appellees purchased an apartment house from appellant’s predecessor in title. At that time appellee received as a part of the purchase an agreement entitled “Easement Agreement” which granted to appel-lee the right to have appellee’s tenants use appellant’s swimming pool. The agreement specified that it was an easement and should be “deemed to be coupled with an interest to run with the land.” It further provided that the agreement was for one month and that it was, “renewable from month to month at the option of Superior Apartment, Inc. (appellee’s) * * * said option to be exercised by the tender to Trio Motel, Inc., its successors and assignees of the sum of $50.00 * * * each and every month on the first day of the month.”
It was the custom of the appellee to mail the check for the $50.00 a few days after the first day of each month and for many months the appellant accepted these checks. On May 2, 1970, appellee mailed its check. On May 5th appellant received the check and on the same day returned the check with a letter stating that the agreement had been terminated.
Appellant argues two points on appeal. First, that the agreement was a renewable option and should have been terminated because of the strict compliance required to exercise an option. Baker v. Coleman, 1948, 160 Fla. 297, 34 So.2d 538. The trial judge held that the plaintiff was estopped to assert the forfeiture of the agreement because he had, over a period of many months, accepted payments a few days late. This holding was not error under this case, see Carlton Estate v. Keller, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 131.
Appellant’s second point urges that the agreement was void because of the rule against perpetuities. This position is not well founded inasmuch as the agreement is coupled with an interest in the land. Traywick v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 277 Ala. 366, 170 So.2d 802; 70 C.J.S. Perpetuities § 11 (1951).
We expressly decline to hold that the agreement before the trial court is a perpetual easement because such a decision is not necessary to a decision upon the points on appeal. We note that the declaratory judgment refers to the agreement by its title only. The title of an instrument does not determine its legal effect.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Estate v. Keller, 52 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1951)
- Baker v. Coleman, 160 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1948)