SYD P. KRANTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
SAM DONNER 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.
Krantz appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for specific performance of real property option contracts. The court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact existed regarding alleged fraudulent conveyance of the property to avoid the option contracts, precluding summary disposition.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the alleged fraudulent transaction and the bona fide nature of the conveyance. The case should proceed to trial rather than be resolved on summary disposition.
[1] Specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property will not ordinarily be decreed against a vendor unable to comply due to conveying the property to a bona…
[2] Equity will order cancellation of a subsequent agreement and decree specific performance of an original contract if a third-party purchaser is aware of a prior sale and t…
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“It is well established that specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of realty will not ordinarily be decreed against the vendor who by virtue of his lack of title is unable to comply with his agreement because of his own act in making a conveyance of the property to a bona fide third party purchaser.”
States the general rule regarding specific performance when a vendor lacks title due to his own conveyance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKrantz filed suit seeking specific performance of option contracts to purchase real property. He alleged the original optionor (Patrician Associates, …
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 Conspiracy To Defraud cases and more on FLexlaw
MAGER, Judge.
This is an appeal by Syd P. Krantz, plaintiff below, from a summary final judgment rendered in favor of the appel-lees, defendants below. The salient facts, briefly stated, reflect that plaintiff filed an action for specific performance of option contracts to convey real property. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the property which was the subject matter of the options was fraudulently conveyed by the original optionor, Patrician Associates, II, a partnership, to Patrician Towers Associates, Inc.; that the corporate entity was the alter ego of the partnership; that such conveyance was made to avoid liability under the option contracts; and that plaintiff exercised the option prior to such conveyance.
It is well established that specific performance of a contract for the sale and conveyance of realty will not ordinarily be decreed against the vendor who by virtue of his lack of title is unable to comply with his agreement because of his own act in making a conveyance of the property to a bona fide third party purchaser. 29A Fla. Jur. Specific Performance § 82. However, that general rule is subject to the following exception:
“ . . . where a third-party purchaser, at the time of the subsequent conveyance of the property to him by the vendor, is fully aware that the vendor had previously sold the property to another and that the prior contract of sale has not been rescinded by the parties, the subsequent contract purportedly entered into between the vendor and the third party will be deemed to be fraudulent and the product of conspiracy. Consequently, equity in such a case will ordef the cancellation of the latter agreement and enter a decree of specific performance of the original contract in favor of the purchaser thereunder, on the payment by him of the balance due on the purchase price of the property.” 29A Fla.Jur., supra, at p. 695.
Hughes v. Jemco, Inc., Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 565; Gigman v. University Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n, Fla.App.1964, 170 So. 2d 330; Sperling v. Davie, Fla.1949, 41 So. 2d 318.
A review of the record in the case sub judice reflects the existence of genuine issues of material fact as to the alleged fraudulent transaction and as to the bona fide nature of the conveyance thereby precluding summary disposition. Ham v. Heintzelman’s Ford, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 256 So. 2d 264; Automobile Sales Inc. v. Fed. Mut. Implement and Hardware Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1972, 256 So. 2d 386; Coquina Ridge Properties v. East West Company, Fla.App. 1971, 255 So. 2d 279.
For the foregoing reasons the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
WALDEN, J., and FERRIS, JOHN G., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Samara Dev. Corp. v. Marlow, 556 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1990)…ne is not sufficient because the developer could sell the property to a third party in the interim, thereby nullifying the availability of specific performance.3 Halsell v. Renfrow, 202 U.S. 287, 26 S.Ct. 610, 50 L.Ed. 1032 (1906); Krantz v. Donner, 285 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). See generally 48 Fla.Jur.2d Specific Performance § 86 (1984); 71 Am. Jur.2d Specific Performance § 126 (1973). Cf. Con-Dev of Vero Beach, Inc. v. Casano, 272 So. 2d 203, 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (“Specific performance of a contra…
-
Henderson Dev. Co. Inc. v. Gerrits, 340 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…to prove his affirmative defense of bona fide purchaser. Hough v. Menses, 95 So. 2d 410 (Fla.1957). Therefore, the court having held that the burden had not been met, a decree of specific performance was capable of being rendered. Krantz v. Donner, 285 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). In appellant’s reply brief, appellant was quick to point out that appellee’s main brief utilized the deposition and affidavit of the alleged bona fide purchaser in violation of F.A.R. 3.7(g). Both the affidavit and deposition o…
-
Goodie Ryskind v. Robinson, 302 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…mative defense of fraud is a “legal defense” which was sufficiently pled and created a genuine issue of material fact to be proven at trial on the merits and ought not to have been disposed of at a summary proceeding. Krantz v. Donner, Fla.App.1973, 285 So. 2d 699; Auto Sales, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., Fla.App. 1972, 256 So. 2d 386; Shaffran v. Holness, Fla. 1957, 93 So. 2d 94; see also Bond v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., Fla.App.1971, 246 So. 2d 631. Accordingly, paragraph 1 of…
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
- Auto. Sales, Inc. v. Federated Mut. Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., 256 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- HAM v. Heintzeliman's Ford, Inc., 256 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Sperling v. Davie, 41 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1949)
- Coquina Ridge Props. v. E. W. Co., 255 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Reid B. Hughes v. Jemco, Inc., 201 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Bigman v. Univ. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Coral Gables, 170 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)