THOMAS J. FRASER, APPELLANT,
v.
IRVING SCHOENFELD AND RUTH SCHOENFELD, HIS WIFE, 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.
Fraser purchased an apartment building after discovering potential code violations but closed the sale under duress. When substantial defects were later discovered by city inspectors, Fraser sued for breach of a covenant warranting no code violations. The court held that Fraser's knowledge of the alleged violations before closing, combined with his acceptance of the deed, triggered the doctrine of merger, precluding his subsequent suit on the contract covenant.
The court held that where a purchaser has knowledge of claimed violations and thereafter closes the deal by accepting the deed, he is precluded by the doctrine of merger from a subsequent suit on a covenant contained in the contract of sale.
[1] A purchaser who closes on a property sale with knowledge of claimed building code violations is precluded by the doctrine of merger from a subsequent suit on a covenant i…
[2] The doctrine of merger extinguishes covenants in a contract of sale upon the acceptance of a deed, unless the parties intended the covenants not to be incorporated in the…
Previewing 2 of 4 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, as here, the purchaser has knowledge of claimed violations and, thereafter, closes the deal, he is precluded by the doctrine of merger from a subsequent suit on a covenant contained in the contract of sale.”
States the controlling legal principle that knowledge of violations before closing combined with acceptance of the deed bars subsequent contract claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFraser contracted to purchase a fifty-year-old apartment building from the Schoenfelds. Before closing, Fraser discovered what he believed were buildi…
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 Merger Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The appellant, Thomas J. Fraser, contracted to purchase a fifty year old apartment house on Miami Beach from the appellees, Irving Schoenfeld and Ruth Schoen-feld, his wife. Before closing, Fraser discovered what he believed to be violations of the building and zoning regulations of the City of Miami Beach. He wrote a letter declining to close. Thereafter, upon the statement of the Schoenfelds that they would sue him if he did not close, the purchase and sale were completed and the deed and possession delivered. Shortly after the closing of the sale, the City of Miami Beach building inspectors uncovered substantial and numerous defects in the building. The appellant, Fraser, sued for damages alleging a violation of a covenant in the contract of sale. The covenant reads as follows:
“8. Seller further states that there are no code violations of the City of Miami Beach or the County of Dade.”
Appellees sued upon the purchase money note, which was in default. The trial judge, after a trial before the court without jury, allowed recovery to Fraser for certain incidental repairs necessary to correct plumbing defects but denied recovery for the alleged structural violations.
This appeal urges error by the trial court in failing to allow the purchaser, Fraser, recovery for the substantial defects that existed in the building prior to the sale but which the City of Miami Beach had not inspected until after the sale.
It is important that this is not a case alleging fraud. Not only is fraud absent from the pleadings, but also on appeal it is stipulated that fraud is not involved.
We hold that where, as here, the purchaser has knowledge of claimed violations and, thereafter, closes the deal, he is precluded by the doctrine of merger from a subsequent suit on a covenant contained in the contract of sale. See the rule of law in Volunteer Security Co. v. Dowl, 159 Fla. 767, 33 So. 2d 150, 151 (1947); and Stephan v. Brown, 233 So. 2d 140, 141 (Fla.2d DCA 1970).
The present case is distinguished from our recent opinion in Steinberg v. Bay Terrace Apartment Hotel, Inc., 363 So. 2d 58 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), in that, first of all, the Steinberg case dealt with the dismissal of a complaint. Secondly, and of more importance, is the fact that the Steinberg opinion is based on an exception to the general rule of merger. As stated in Milu, Inc. v. Duke, 204 So. 2d 31 (Fla.3d DCA 1967):
“It is a general rule that preliminary agreements and understandings relative to the sale of property usually merge in the deed executed pursuant thereto. 33 Fla.Jur., Vendor and Purchaser, Sec. 95; 10 Fla.Jur., Deeds, Sec. 151. However, there are exceptions to the merger rule. The rule that acceptance of a deed tendered in performance of a contract to convey land merges or extinguishes the covenants and stipulations contained in the contract does not apply to those provisions of the antecedent contract which the parties do not intend to be incorporated in the deed, or which are not necessarily performed or satisfied by the execution and delivery of the stipulated conveyance.”
* * * * * *
In the present case, it is apparent that the nature and wording of paragraph 8 of the preliminary agreement, supra, do not bring that paragraph within the exception relied upon in Steinberg. Unquestionably, the agreement was fully merged into the completed deed.
Appellant’s second point on appeal does not show any prejudicial error in the trial court’s permitting an amendment of the appellees’ pleadings to include the defense of waiver. See Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(b).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Nat'l Self Storage, Inc. v. Lopez-Aguiar, 521 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ders for breach of sales contract because provisions pertaining to construction are not performed by delivery and acceptance of warranty deeds. Worthey v. Holmes, 249 Ga. 104, 287 S.E. 2d 9 (1982). . While the seller relies on Fraser v. Schoenfeld, 364 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and Steinberg v. Bay Terrace Apartment Hotel, Inc., 375 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we find these cases to be inapposite because they concern an encumbrance on property and a restriction on the use of property, respectively,…
-
S. Nat'l Track Servs., Inc. v. DJ Gilley, 152 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…irs and brought this action to recover its expenditures in so doing.” Id. The purchaser succeeded in obtaining a summary judgment, and the seller appealed, arguing reversal was warranted based on the merger doctrine pursuant to Fraser v. Schoenfeld, 364 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Id. In Fraser, which relied on the same cases as Brown, the Third District found the buyer’s claim for damages based on breach of a similar warranty, with respect to municipal code compliance, was barred by merger, holding: “ ‘w…
-
Sager v. Turner, 402 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…nical, electrical and plumbing violations which existed. Appellee made the required repairs and brought this action to recover its expenditures in so doing. Appellant argues that this case should be governed by the decision in Fraser v. Schoenfeld, 364 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). In that case the parties’ contract for the [*1283] purchase of an apartment house contained the following clause: 8. Seller further states that there are no code violations of the City of Miami Beach or the County of Dade. Befo…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ervin M. Smith, Jr. v. State, 204 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Volunteer Sec. Co., Inc. v. Dowl, 159 Fla. 767 (Fla. 1947)
- Cook v. State, 233 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Stephan v. Brown, 233 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Steinberg v. BAY Terrace Apt. Hotel, Inc., 363 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)