LYNWOOD G. WILLIS AND JANE I. WILLIS, HIS WIFE, HAMPTON J. WALKER AND STEPHANIE S. WALKER, SYNDICATE, APPELLANTS,
v.
GORDON BRENT, 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.
Developers purchased a 480-acre tract of land for a fixed price of $185,000 without a warranty of acreage, and later discovered it contained only 400 acres. The court affirmed the seller's foreclosure, holding that the sale was in gross at a fixed price, not per acre, and the buyers had the opportunity to survey the property but did not do so timely.
The court held that the sale was in gross at a fixed price, not per acre; no warranty of acreage was made; no fraud, misrepresentation, or gross mistake occurred; and the buyers had ample opportunity to survey the property but failed to do so timely, thus the foreclosure is proper.
[1] A sale of land described as containing a certain acreage, "more or less," is presumed to be a sale in gross unless the contrary is clearly shown.
[2] A buyer's right to relief for a deficiency in acreage is precluded when the sale is in gross and no warranty of acreage was made.
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“the sale was in gross and not by the acre, that no warranty of acreage was made, and that the buyers actually had a superior knowledge of the property to that of the seller”
Establishes the trial court's key factual findings regarding the nature of the sale and the parties' relative knowledge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWillis and Walker negotiated to purchase a Nassau County tract bordering the St. Marys River from Brent at $185,000 for 480 acres more or less. The pu…
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 Caveat Emptor cases and more on FLexlaw
EASTMOORE, E. L., Associate Judge.
Appellants, Willis and Walker, real estate developers, negotiated the purchase from Appellee, Brent, of a tract of land in Nassau County, bordering on the St. Marys River, at a sales price of $185,000 and containing “480 acres more or less”. The purchase agreement entered into required the buyers to bear the cost of a survey, “if they wish to have a survey done”. The sale was closed November 27, 1972. A purchase money mortgage to secure the purchase price was executed, with release clauses. The buyers finally surveyed the last portion of the property on September 8, 1975, which survey reflected that the tract contained not more than 400 acres. Thereafter, the buyers declined to make further payments and the seller filed an action to foreclose the mortgage.
The testimony before the trial court revealed, and the trial court found in the final judgment, that the sale was in gross and not by the acre, that no warranty of acreage was made, and that the buyers actually had a superior knowledge of the property to that of the seller.
The trial court found that there was no fraud or misrepresentation, that there was no mutual or gross mistake, and the trial court granted the relief of foreclosure. The buyers took this appeal from the judgment of the trial court.
Appellants place great reliance in this court’s holding in Platt v. Deese, 298 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. dismissed, 301 So. 2d 780 (Fla.1974), wherein the Court referred to the Supreme Court Decision in Phifer v. Steenburg, 66 Fla. 555, 64 So. 265 (1914), concerning the right to recover the deficiency in sales by the tract when there is fraud or gross mistake. Such reliance is misplaced, for in Platt, the Court found that there was not only gross mistake, but gross misrepresentation. In the case sub judice both sides agree that no misrepresentation and no fraud were ever involved. In this case the trial judge had ample evidence upon which to base his decision that there was no guarantee of acreage, that the sale was in gross, and that the buyers had ample opportunity to have the property surveyed and the exact acreage ascertained, if they so desired.
The facts before the trial court do not lend themselves to a finding that the purchase price was on a per acre basis. In fact, it would have been difficult to ascertain a per acre price for the reason that the property (which was purchased for development and re-sale) consisted of high land, low land and river frontage. The buyers quite obviously did not concern themselves with the total amount of acreage because of the time within which they surveyed the property.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
McCORD, C. J., and MELVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Phifer v. Steenburg, 66 Fla. 555 (Fla. 1914)
- Margery Lane Corp. v. Underwriters AT Lloyd's (i. e., 301 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1974)
- Dr. B. L. Stalnaker, M.D. v. Neckles, 301 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1974)