PAMELA CRISTINA MARTINEZ, MARIA SALVADE, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTH BAYSHORE TOWER, L.L.L.P., 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.
Purchasers of pre-construction condominium units sought reversal of summary judgment after the developer returned their deposits with checks bearing accord and satisfaction language. The court affirmed, holding that by cashing the checks, the purchasers accepted the developer's offer of accord and satisfaction, thereby releasing all rights and obligations under the original contracts.
The court held that accord and satisfaction occurred because the purchasers' act of cashing the checks evidenced their intent to settle the dispute and constituted actual performance of the accord and satisfaction agreement. By cashing checks bearing clear accord and satisfaction language, the purchasers accepted the developer's offer and became bound by its conditions.
[1] An accord and satisfaction requires the mutual intent to settle an existing dispute through a superseding agreement and actual performance of that new agreement.
[2] Accepting a check offered as an accord and satisfaction binds the recipient to the conditions attached to the offer.
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“An accord and satisfaction results when: (1) the parties mutually intend to effect a settlement of an existing dispute by entering into a superseding agreement; and (2) there is actual performance in accordance with the new agreement.”
Establishes the two-part test for accord and satisfaction applicable to this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe developer and purchasers entered into pre-construction condominium contracts with purchasers providing a ten percent deposit. The developer subseq…
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 Accord And Satisfaction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants (“Purchasers”) seek reversal of an adverse summary judgment in favor of South Bayshore Tower, L.L.L.P. (“the Developer”). Based upon accord and satisfaction, we affirm.
The Developer and the Purchasers entered into pre-construction condominium contracts and the Purchasers gave the Developer a ten percent deposit of the total purchase price. Thereafter, the Developer abandoned the project. The Developer returned the Purchasers’ deposits with a letter stating that cashing the check would serve as an accord and satisfaction, terminating the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract. All of the Purchasers cashed their checks.
The Purchasers contend that there was no intent to settle an existing dispute and thus, no accord and satisfaction. The Developer asserts that there was an accord and satisfaction because the Purchasers relieved the parties of all rights and obligations under the contract by cashing their returned deposit checks. We agree with the Developer. An accord and satisfaction results when: (1) the parties mutually intend to effect a settlement of an existing dispute by entering into a superseding agreement; and (2) there is actual performance in accordance with the new agreement. Compliance with the new agreement discharges the prior obligations. Rudick v. Rudick, 403 So. 2d 1091, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Here, cashing the checks satisfied the elements of accord and satisfaction. It showed that the Purchasers intended to effectuate a settlement of the dispute and also constituted actual performance of the new agreement.
Additionally, if an offer clearly serves as an accord and satisfaction, and the other party accepts the offer, then he or she is bound to the conditions attached. McGehee v. Mata, 330 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Had the Purchasers intended the Developer to remain obligated under the contract, then they should not have cashed their checks.
Further, strong public policy supports the use of accord and satisfaction. Accord and satisfaction is a convenient and valuable tool for resolving disputes informally without litigation. Burke Co. v. Hilton Dev. Co., 802 F.Supp. 434 (N.D.Fla.1992). It would be unjust to allow a party to accept a check as an accord and satisfaction, and then later permit that party to sue under the same rights and obligations that the accord and satisfaction was intended to release. The person cannot “have his cake and eat it too.” 802 F.Supp. at 439.
Accordingly, we affirm the final summary judgment.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rocka Fuerta Constr. Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So. 3d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…t of an existing dispute by entering into a superseding agreement, and (2) there is actual performance in accordance with the new agreement; compliance with the new agreement discharges the prior obligations. Martinez v. S. Bayshore Tower, L.L.L.P., 979 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). The defense of accord and satisfaction requires proof that "the parties mutually intended to effect settlement of an existing dispute by entering into a superseding agreement ... and ... actual performance with satisfaction…
-
ST. Croix Lane Tr. & M.L. Shapiro v. ST. Croix at Pelican Marsh Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 144 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…claim, an accord and satisfaction resulted. See Miller-Dunn Co. v. Green, 154 Fla. 72, 16 So. 2d 637, 638 (1944); United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Palm Chiropractic Ctr., Inc., 51 So. 3d 506, 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Martinez v. S. Bayshore Tower, L.L.L.P., 979 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). If the Association did not wish to accept the $840 check in full settlement of its claims in accordance with the Trust’s conditional tender, then it should have returned the check instead of negotiating it. See The Burke Co…
-
Cirrus Design Corp. v. Lauraence A. Sasso, 95 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…of an existing dispute by entering into a superseding agreement; and (2) there is actual performance in accordance with the new agreement. Compliance with the new agreement discharges the prior obligations.” Martinez v. S. Bayshore Tower; L.L.L.P., 979 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). As argued by Cirrus, the “superseding agreement” can either “take the form of either an executory accord which requires actual performance before the original obligation of the parties is satisfied or a substituted agreeme…1 / 3
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
- McGEHEE v. Mata, 330 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Rudick v. Rudick, 403 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Burke Co. v. Hilton Dev. Co., 802 F. Supp. 434 (N.D. Fla. 1992)