JAMES H. BLACK AND PATRICIA ANN BLACK, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ROBERT B. CLIFTON AND PHYLLIS K. CLIFTON, 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.
Purchasers of real property sued for specific performance when the sellers could not provide the promised public road access to the property. The court reversed the trial court's denial of specific performance, holding that buyers are entitled to specific performance with an abatement in purchase price when sellers cannot fully perform their contractual obligations.
The court held that a buyer is entitled to specific performance of a real estate contract for as much of the property as the vendor can convey, with an appropriate abatement in the purchase price to account for the deficiency in title or access rights. The seller cannot escape performance of the contract due to their own inability or deficiency in performance.
[1] A buyer is entitled to specific performance of a real estate contract for as much of the property as the seller can convey, subject to an abatement in the purchase price,…
[2] A seller cannot escape contractual obligations by reason of their own inability to perform as promised.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Where a seller can not convey all of the lands he contracted to convey or where the quality of his title does not meet the contract standard and can not be remedied, nevertheless the buyer is entitled to specific performance of the contract for as much of the property as the vendor can convey or of the quality of title that he possesses, subject to an abatement in the purchase price because of such default or deficiency.”
Establishes the core legal principle that buyers can obtain specific performance with price reduction when sellers cannot fully perform contractual obligations regarding property conveyance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Blacks entered into a written contract to purchase real estate from the Cliftons. The contract included a provision warranting that there was ingr…
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 Parol Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
This is a specific performance problem. It arose out of a written contract to sell real estate. The problem-causing provision found therein was “Seller convenants and warrants, (1) that there is ingress and egress to said property over public roads; . . ."
It developed that the defendants-sellers did not own and could not deliver such public road access and same was available, at best, only by private easement. Regardless, with this back drop, the purchasers under the contract, as plaintiffs, sued the sellers for specific performance. Specific performance was denied. Purchasers appeal. We reverse.
The implicit and underlying dis-positive question has to do with the right belonging to the vendee to compel vendor to perform his contract to the extent of his ability. See generally 29A Fla.Jur., Specific Performance § 83 et seq. Where a seller can not convey all of the lands he contracted to convey or where the quality of his title does not meet the contract standard and can not be remedied, nevertheless the buyer is entitled to specific performance of the contract for as much of the property as the vendor can convey or of the quality of title that he possesses, subject to an abatement in the purchase price because of such default or deficiency. Rose v. Henderson, Fla.1912, 63 Fla. 564, 59 So. 138; Brown v. Griffin, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 781. The contract in question was complete, clear and unambiguous on its face and was not a proper subject for the admission of parol evidence to explain or vary it. Rothstein v. Forty-Five, Twenty-Five, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 145 So. 2d 565.
In short the purchasers here, having chosen to accept the fact that there was no ingress or egress to the property over public roads, were entitled to specific performance and conveyance of the property to them with an appropriate abatement in the purchase price because of this deficiency and the fact that the property was only reachable by easement. Rose v. Henderson, supra; Brown v. Griffin, supra; Presley v. Worthington, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 714. The sellers should not be heard to deny their contract and to escape performance by reason of their own deficiency and inability to perform as they promised. Triplett v. Brevard Properties, Inc., Fla.1927, 94 Fla. 869, 115 So. 534.
The appealed judgment is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, C. J. and MAGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. Koff, 345 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…ny extensive evidence to explain or vary the express terms of a contract unless an ambiguity of a contract is first found to fairly appear. See Dimension Four International, Ltd. v. Huskey Realty, Fla.App., 325 So. 2d 34; Black v. Clifton, Fla.App., 284 So. 2d 465; Graham v. Graham, Fla.App., 277 So. 2d 540; Hamilton Construction Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla., 65 So. 2d 729; Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Wahl, 97 So. 2d 714. The above stated cases taken together adhere to the principle that the courts a…
-
Ocean Dunes of Hutchinson Island Dev. Corp. v. Colangelo, 463 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ertain circumstances, to order specific performance of a contract as requested by the victim of a breach. See Strong v. Chisolm, 422 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Home America, Inc. v. Atkinson, 392 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Black v. Clifton, 284 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Northwestern National Insurance Company v. Greenspun, 330 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Black v. Frank, 176 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The issue, then, is whether the language of the contract in this case, which purports t…
-
Bermont Lakes, LLC v. Rooney, 980 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…entitled to specific performance of the land the seller can convey because “sellers should not be heard to deny their contract and to escape performance by reason of their own deficiency and inability to perform as they promised.” Black v. Clifton, 284 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). Under the reasoning of Kubicek and Black, the Trust was not entitled to avoid the entire contract with Bermont Lakes as a matter of law simply because it could not convey all of the acreage contemplated by the contract. In…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Triplett v. Brevard Props., Inc., 94 Fla. 869 (Fla. 1927)
- Rose v. Henderson, 63 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1912)
- Rothstein v. Forty-Five, 145 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Brown v. Griffin, 75 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 1954)