JOSE ANTONIO LA GUARDIA ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ANTONIO PEREZ 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.
The LaGuardias and Garcia sought to enforce a contract to purchase property from the Perez defendants, but their contract contained a condition making it void if the sellers were compelled by court order to perform under a prior contract with Moreno. The trial court found Moreno's prior contract valid and enforceable, thereby voiding the LaGuardias' contract by its own terms, and the appellate court affirmed.
The trial court properly found that Moreno's prior contract was valid and enforceable, which rendered the LaGuardias' contract unenforceable by its own explicit terms. The LaGuardias received no relief because their contract specifically provided that it would become void if the sellers were compelled to perform under the prior Moreno contract.
[1] A prior contract for the purchase of real property remains enforceable if supported by sufficient evidence, even if the seller subsequently declares it null and void.
[2] A subsequent contract for the purchase of real property is rendered null and void by its own terms if a court compels the seller to perform under a prior, valid contract.
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“All of the Purchasers understand and are aware that the Sellers have previously entered into a Deposit Receipt Contract dated September 11, 1972, in which one Pedro Pascual Moreno was the Purchaser. All of the Buyers further understand that the Sellers have declared the aforementioned Deposit Receipt Contract null and void and of no effect whatsoever, but that in the event that the Sellers are compelled to perform under the terms of the aforementioned Deposit Receipt Contract by Court order, then this contract shall be declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever and all monies deposited hereunder shall be returned to the Purchasers.”
The explicit conditional language in the LaGuardias' contract that rendered it void if the sellers were compelled by court order to perform the prior Moreno contract
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe LaGuardias and Garcia entered into a contract to purchase a residence from Antonio and Ramona Perez. Unknown to the LaGuardias at the time, the Pe…
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 Contract Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These consolidated appeals are from an interlocutory order and two final judgments. The appellants in each instance are Jose Antonio LaGuardia, Amparo LaGuar-dia and Orlando Garcia. They were the intended purchasers under a contract for the purchase of a residence from Antonio Perez and Ramona Perez. The appeals are as follows: (1) from an interlocutory order enjoining the plaintiffs LaGuardia and the plaintiff Garcia from interfering with an appraisal of the property, (2) from a final judgment for Pedro Moreno, the plaintiff in a specific performance suit against the defendants Perez, and (3) from a final judgment for the defendants Perez in a specific performance suit by the plaintiffs, appellants here, LaGuardia.
The LaGuardias’ troubles began when they signed a deposit receipt contract to purchase the residence on which there was then outstanding a prior deposit receipt contract. The LaGuardias’ contract contained the following condition:
sfc * * * ¡k sfc
“All of the Purchasers understand and are aware that the Sellers have previously entered into a Deposit Receipt Contract dated September 11, 1972, in which one Pedro Pascual Moreno was the Purchaser. All of the Buyers further understand that the Sellers have declared the aforementioned Deposit Receipt Contract null and void and of no effect whatsoever, but that in the event that the Sellers are compelled to perform under the terms of the aforementioned Deposit Receipt Contract by Court order, then this contract shall be declared null and void and of no effect whatsoever and all monies deposited hereunder shall be returned to the Purchasers.”
The LaGuardias went into possession but paid a stipulated rent pending developments including the payment of the full deposit required. Moreno began his suit for the specific performance of his prior contract. The LaGuardias brought a specific performance suit to enforce their contract and the two suits were consolidated for trial proceedings.
The burden of these appeals is the La-Guardias’ contention that the trial court erred in finding that the contract between Moreno and Perez was valid and enforceable, thereby eliminating the equities of the appellants. The LaGuardias also urge that they did not receive a trial of their equitable claims. Our examination of the record convinces us that the trial court’s determination that Moreno’s prior contract was valid and enforceable is supported by sufficient evidence to sustain his finding on appeal. See Koplin v. Bennett, 182 So. 2d 247 (Fla.1st DCA 1966). This fact having been determined, the LaGuardias’ contract was not enforceable by its own terms.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. McGOWAN, 402 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…the seller would have been required to do, had he not transferred the legal title. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 119 Fla. 610, 160 So. 657 (1935); Dunson v. Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co., 346 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); La Guardia v. Perez, 339 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); See Fraser v. Cohen, 159 Fla. 253, 31 So. 2d 463 (1947). The key material issue in this case was whether or not Alimón had knowledge of sufficient facts to charge him with implied knowledge of McDonald’s prior contract. Implied n…
Authorities Cited
- Koplin v. Bennett, 182 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)