HAROLD SALMON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBER BROS., INC., A FLORIDA 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.
The court held that the seller did not breach the contract by failing to provide an abstract of title and that the contract provision allowing the seller to retain the deposit upon buyer's default was enforceable.
The buyer sued the seller for breach of a real estate contract, seeking the return of a $19,000 deposit. The seller moved for summary judgment, arguin…
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 Enforceability Of Contract Provisions cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant, as Vendee, sued appellee, as Vendor, for breach of a contract to convey realty. Appellant sought to recover the $19,000 deposit which he had delivered to appellee pursuant to the contract. Upon appellee’s motion the trial court entered a summary judgment in its favor. The breach of contract with which appellee was charged was failure to furnish an abstract of title as required by the contract. However, on motion for summary judgment appellee demonstrated by depositions in the record that appellee had furnished the required abstract of title and that, therefore, there was no genuine issue of material fact involved.
Additionally, appellant contends that the contract provision which allowed appellee to retain the deposit of $19,000 in the event appellant defaulted under the terms of the contract was a forfeiture and thus was unenforceable. We reject this contention upon authority of Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1972) and Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin, 317 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garrison v. Garrison, 380 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…nter an award of permanent alimony of $800.00 per month.1 The judgment below is otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur. . We again emphasize, as we did in the earlier opinion at 351 So. 2d 1105, that this award is subject to modification under § 61.14, F.S. (1977) upon a showing of a significant change in circumstances, including, for example, an unexpected increase in- Mrs. Garrison’s earnings.…
Authorities Cited
- Hutchison v. Tompkins, 259 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1972)
- Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin, 317 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)