HENDRIK W. VIETOR, APPELLANT,
v.
MARGARET A. SILL AND GEORGE M. CRANDALL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in not granting specific performance and in failing to consider damages, and that a conveyance by one defendant to another was void.
This case involves the third appearance of the parties before the court. The trial court had previously failed to grant specific performance or consid…
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 Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On the occasion of the third appearance of this case no useful purpose will be served by any further recitation of the facts. Suffice it to say that the trial court has apparently failed to fully appreciate the import of our prior decisions.1 Upon examination of the record in this case and consideration of the briefs and oral argument we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in not granting plaintiff specific performance and in failing to consider the award of damages. In order to further implement our prior decisions and based upon the facts in the record we are of the opinion that the purported conveyance by defendant Sill to defendant Joyce was null and void and is hereby set aside. Krantz v. Donner, Fla.App. 1973, 285 So. 2d 699. The defendant Sill is directed to convey the property in question to the plaintiff in accordance with his prayer for relief and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on the issue of damages in accordance with the theory of plaintiff’s case. Sea Ledge Properties, Inc. v. Dodge, Fla.App. 1973, 283 So. 2d 55.2 In all other respects to the extent not inconsistent herewith the final judgment is affirmed.3
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.
OWEN, C. J., and CROSS and MA-GER, JJ., cor.cur. . Vietor v. Sill, Fla.App.1973, 272 So. 2d 173; Victor v. Sill, Fla.App.1971, 243 So. 2d 198.
. In ascertaining the amount of any damages, computations shall begin on the date notice was received of plaintiff’s agreement to buy the subject property, December 6, 1968 through the date plaintiff received possession of the subject i>roperty. In addition, the defendant Sill shall be entitled to interest on the purchase price accruing from December 6, 1968 through and including the date on which plaintiff deposited the purchase money into the registry of the court.
.In particular, the claim for attorney’s fees is disallowed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- SEA Ledge Props., Inc. v. Dodge, 283 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Dickerson v. State, 285 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Syd P. Krantz v. Donner, 285 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Hendrik W. Vietor v. Sill, 243 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Hendrik W. Vietor v. Sill, 272 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)