GEORGE P. JOYCE, APPELLANT,
v.
P. G. C. CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed, precluding summary judgment.
Plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract to convey real property based on an assigned lease option. The trial court granted judgment on t…
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 Covenant Running With The Land cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Joyce brought an action for specific performance of a contract to convey real property. His claim was based on an option to purchase present in a lease allegedly assigned to him.
Judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment were awarded in defendant’s favor. Upon examining the record and briefs we find material, genuine issues of fact and law existed. Therefore, we reverse and remand.
A survey of the record reveals at least these issues of fact which must be determined on remand and the existence of which prohibited the entry of the instant summary judgment as a matter of law:
1. Was there a valid assignment of the lease to plaintiff? In other words, was consent to the assignment unreasonably withheld ?
2. Was there a valid assignment of the option to purchase in the lease? Generally, options to purchase are inseparable from the lease and are covenants running with the land. But there is an exception to this general rule. Where the option is inserted in the lease because personal confidence is reposed by the lessor in the lessee this consideration may be enough to remove the option as a covenant running with the land. Sisco v. Rotenberg, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 365; Rosello v. Hayden, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 682; Markos v. Raimondi, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 506. Whether this exception is applicable is a question of fact which must be more fully explored.
3. If there was a valid assignment of the lease, in that reasonable requirements for doing so were met, and if there was also a valid assignment of the option to purchase, the trier of fact must finally determine whether the reasonable requirements for consummating the actual purchase were met. This determination shall include an investigation into the possibility of any actions by plaintiff which may have constituted waiver.
We reverse and remand for a full trial consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nofs v. State, 295 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…a ministerial act and any failure therein does not void the warrant, unless prejudice is shown. Evans v. United States, 6th Cir. 1957, 242 F. 2d 534; State v. Featherstone, Fla.App.3rd 1971, 246 So. 2d 597; Cf. State v. Henderson, Fla.App.4th, 1971, 253 So. 2d 158. While we have found no reported authority in Florida dealing with the exact situation, we think the same rule should apply. In State v. Ronniger, 1971, 7 Or.App. 447, 492 P. 2d 298, the Court of Appeals in Oregon held that the fact that the propert…
-
State v. Nelson, 542 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…and complete warrant in his possession and served an incomplete duplicate on the defendant or the searched premises. Cf. State v. Gaunt, 456 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Harden v. State, 433 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); and State v. Henderson, 253 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). In such cases, suppression should be denied absent a showing of prejudice. The officer who conducted the instant search did not have the requisite exhibit describing the location in his possession at the time of the search. More…
-
Harden v. State, 433 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…0, 122 So. 110 (1929), stated in dicta that the failure to issue a search warrant in duplicate rendered it void, but here there is no indication that the search warrant was not issued in duplicate. On the other hand, the court in State v. Henderson, 253 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), held that the failure to deliver an exact duplicate of the original search warrant amounted only to the omission of a ministerial act, which in the absence of prejudice would not vitiate the seizure. However, that decision was p…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sisco v. Rotenberg, 104 So. 2d 365 (Fla. 1958)
- Rosello v. Weldon C. Hayden, 79 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 1955)
- Markos v. Raimondi, 108 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)