ERNEST E. JOHNSTON AND D. RIAN MARTIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
STEPHEN C. O'CONNELL 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.
Appellants purchased real property from appellees based on a survey showing 88.47 acres at $1,250 per acre. A corrected survey later revealed 94.69 acres, and appellees sought payment for the additional 6.22 acres. The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees on an unjust enrichment theory, but the appellate court affirmed liability while reversing the legal basis and remanding for reformation of the mortgage based on the clear contractual price.
The court held that appellants are liable for payment of the additional 6.22 acres at the contractually agreed rate of $1,250 per acre ($7,775 total), and the purchase money mortgage should be reformed accordingly, or alternatively appellants should reconvey the 67-foot strip erroneously included in the initial survey. The trial court correctly held appellants responsible for the additional acreage but erred in basing liability on unjust enrichment and allowing market value to be determined by a fact-finder rather than applying the fixed contractual rate.
[1] A contract provision specifying a per-acre rate for land, coupled with a survey to determine exact acreage, establishes the price per acre for the transaction, even if an…
[2] When a contract for the sale of land relies on a survey that is later corrected, and the corrected survey reveals a discrepancy in acreage, the parties are bound by the t…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 evidence in this case demonstrates a classic example of mutual mistake, thus reformation.”
Establishes the legal basis for the court's holding—that mutual mistake, not unjust enrichment, was the proper theory for resolving the dispute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1973, Turkey Roost Plantation sold property to defendants under a contract providing for payment at $1,250 per acre with the price to be ad…
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 Purchase Money Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellants, defendants in the trial court, appeal a partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in favor of plaintiffs, appellees here.
In January of 1973, Turkey Roost Plantation, of which appellees constitute the Board of Trustees, sold to defendants a parcel of property described as:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 11 and that part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, lying North of • State Road 10 (U.S. 90), Leon County, Florida.
The contract which predated the sale described the property as consisting of approximately 79 acres, more or less. In that contract were various terms and conditions of sale, one of which provided:
“The acreage rate offered is $1,250.00 per acre. The survey will be supplied to purchasers by the sellers ascertaining exact acreage and dimensions of this tract of land. The purchase price will be adjusted at the rate of $1,250.00 per acre to the exact acreage figure reflected by the survey. The down payment will remain the same in any event and the annual payments will be adjusted accordingly in the mortgage instrument and note.”
Pursuant' to the above quoted paragraph, a survey was procured which showed the exact amount of acreage to be 88.47 acres, or 9.47 acres more than anticipated. The purchase price was increased by employing the rate recited in the contract and the sale was closed on that basis. Appellants thereupon took possession of the property and made certain improvements. Some eight months later it was discovered that the survey had incorrectly determined the right-of-way of U. S. 90 to extend 100 feet on either side of the center line when, in fact, the right-of-way extended only 33 feet on either side of the center line. The surveyor thereupon prepared a corrected survey which showed the subject tract to contain 94.69 acres, an increase of 6.22 acres over the original survey. Both parties accept the accuracy of the corrected survey. When the purchasers refused the demand of the sellers for payment for the additional 6.22 acres at the agreed rate of $1,250 per acre (or an increase in the purchase money mortgage by a like amount), the sellers commenced suit.
Count 1 of the complaint sought compensation for unjust enrichment and Count 2 sought reformation of the purchase money mortgage or, in the alternative, a reconveyance of the 6.22 acres. The learned trial judge entered a summary judgment on the issue of liability, but did so on the theory of unjust enrichment, holding that there was an issue to be resolved by the trier of fact as to “the average market value at the time of closing of 6.22 acres of the tract conveyed by” the sellers to the purchasers.
The evidence in this case demonstrates a classic example of mutual mistake, thus reformation. There is no question but that the purchasers contracted to purchase such property as the seller should convey, determined by an accurate survey, at the rate of $1,250 per acre. Neither party was aware of the error in the initial survey which was relied upon at the time of closing. The learned trial judge was therefore eminently correct when he held that the purchasers were responsible for payment for the additional 6.22 acres revealed by the corrected survey to have been conveyed to them. However, he erred in basing his order on the theory of unjust enrichment, thereby holding that the amount of compensation was to be fixed by a trier of fact based upon “the average market value at the time of closing”. The price per acre was clearly fixed by the contract at $1,250 per acre. There is no issue in that regard. In accordance with Count 2 of the complaint, the purchase money mortgage should be reformed to se cure the payment by the purchasers (mortgagors) to the sellers (mortgagees) of an additional $7,775.00 (6.22 acres times $1,-250 per acre) or in the alternative the purchasers, appellants, should be required to reconvey to appellees the 67 foot strip which was erroneously reflected by the original survey to have been included in the right-of-way of U.S. 90.
We have considered the other points raised by appellants and find them to be without merit.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.