JOSE F. FONT AND CARMEN G. FONT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
LAZARUS HOMES 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.
Homebuyers who deposited $5,301 to purchase a home sought return of the deposit after initially qualifying for financing but then requesting disqualification due to employment changes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the seller, holding that the buyers' failure to close constituted a breach of the purchase agreement because they had effectively qualified for the required financing.
The court held that the Fonts breached the purchase agreement and forfeited their deposit because they had effectively qualified for the financing required by the deposit receipt agreement, making their failure to close a material breach.
[1] A trial court may properly grant summary judgment when the determination of a lawsuit depends upon the legal effect of a written instrument.
[2] A deposit paid pursuant to a purchase agreement is forfeited as liquidated damages when the purchasers, having qualified for financing, subsequently breach the contract b…
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“Where the determination of a lawsuit depends upon a written instrument and the legal effect to be drawn therefrom, the question is essentially one of law and ordinarily would be determinable by entry of summary judgment by the trial judge.”
Establishes the legal standard for interpreting written contracts through summary judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Fonts and Lazarus Homes entered into a deposit receipt agreement for the purchase of a residence for $54,171, with the Fonts paying a $5,301 depos…
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 Return Of Deposit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Purchasers seek reversal of an adverse summary judgment in their action for return of a $5,301 deposit placed with the defendant seller pursuant to an agreement for purchase of a new home.
Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Font, and defendant, Lazarus Homes Corporation, entered into a deposit receipt agreement whereby the Fonts agreed to purchase from Lazarus a residence for $54,171 and paid a $5,301 deposit. The agreement provided that the Fonts would make application for a first mortgage with First Federal Savings & Loan Association and in the event they failed to qualify, Lazarus had the option of returning the deposit and terminating the agreement; in the event plaintiffs were qualified by the mortgagee, but did not close, the deposit would be retained by Lazarus as liquidated and agreed damages. Plaintiffs were approved by First Federal; however, plaintiffs subsequently requested First Federal to disqualify them because Mr. Font had been furloughed by his employer. First Federal granted their request. Thereafter, Lazarus as mortgagor1 obtained a permanent mortgage on the house which was assumable by the Fonts. The Fonts upon being so advised refused to close and Lazarus retained their $5,301 deposit. Plaintiffs filed suit for return of the deposit and summary judgment was entered for Lazarus. We affirm.
Where the determination of a lawsuit depends upon a written instrument and the legal effect to be drawn therefrom, the question is essentially one of law and ordinarily would be determinable by entry of summary judgment by the trial judge. Rochan v. American Fire and Casualty Company, 200 So. 2d 213, 220 (Fla.2d DCA 1967); Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla.3d DCA 1970).
It is uncontested that Lazarus obtained a permanent mortgage assumable by the plaintiffs and, in effect, plaintiffs qualified for the financing required by the deposit receipt agreement. Thus, plaintiffs’ failure to close constituted a breach of contract and they forfeited the $5,301 deposit.
Affirmed.
. First Federal was the mortgagee. This mortgage obtained by Lazarus was in the same principal amount as the mortgage applied for by the plaintiffs and initially approved by First Federal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shidara Invs. Co., N.V. v. Republic Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 631 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Gevertz v. Gevertz, 608 So. 2d 129, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Font v. Lazarus Homes Corp., 339 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); American Securities Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 104, 121-22, 67 So. 862, 867 (1915); Fla.R.Civ.P. Form 1.996.…
-
Ball v. Fla. Podiatrist Tr., 620 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…effect, the question is essentially one of law and is ordinarily determinable by the entry of summary judgment. National Luggage Services, Inc. v. Reedy Forwarding Company, Inc., 339 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Font v. Lazarus Homes Corporation, 339 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); accord Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Institute, Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) and Kochan v. American Fire and Casualty Company, 200 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967). Buckner v. Physicians Protective Trust Fund, 376 So. 2…
-
Clasby v. The Univ. OF Miami, 356 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…background and setting in which the settlement contract was executed, the interpretation of that contract is a matter of law for this Court to decide. City of Leesburg v. Hall, 96 Fla. 186, 117 So. 840, 841 (1928); Font v. Lazarus Homes Corporation, 339 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1976); Pentecostal Holiness Church, Inc. v. Mauney, 270 So. 2d 762, 769 (Fla. 4th Dist. 1973); Automatic Canteen Co. of America v. Butler, 177 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 3d Dist. 1965). “2. Based upon the undisputed facts in this case, the only…
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
- Kochan v. Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 200 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Shafer & Miller v. Miami Heart Inst., Inc., 237 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)