LARRY D. BELTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
HAZLETT ENTERPRISES, A/K/A HAZLETT ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A DEAN L. HAZLETT AND HUMPE RONEY, INC., 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.
Beltz appeals from a summary judgment favoring Hazlett Enterprises in a real estate contract dispute. The court reversed, holding that Hazlett breached the contract by failing to provide a termite report from a bonded company that addressed all infestation, not just visible damage, as required by the contract terms.
The contract was clear and unambiguous requiring a termite report from a licensed and bonded company stating whether any infestation existed on the property. Hazlett breached the contract by supplying a report from a non-bonded company that stated only the absence of visible damage. Summary judgment was properly entered in favor of Beltz as a matter of law.
[1] A contract provision requiring a written statement from a licensed and bonded termite company regarding infestation must be strictly construed.
[2] A termite report stating no 'visible' damage does not satisfy a contract requiring a statement on whether there is any termite infestation.
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“Paragraph 12 of the contract provided, inter alia, 'Seller agrees to furnish Purchaser a written statement of a licensed and bonded termite company, stating whether there is any infestation on said property.'”
Establishes the express contract requirement that Hazlett failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1982, Beltz entered into a real estate purchase contract with Hazlett Enterprises. Paragraph 12 required Hazlett to furnish a written stateme…
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 Construction Against The Drafter cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Larry D. Beltz, plaintiff below, appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of appellee Hazlett Enterprises (Hazlett). In April 1982, Beltz entered into a real estate contract to purchase certain property from Hazlett. Paragraph 12 of the contract provided, inter alia, “Seller agrees to furnish Purchaser a written statement of a licensed and bonded termite company, stating whether there is any infestation on said property.” When Beltz received the report, however, it stated only that there was no “visible” termite damage observed. Beltz refused to close on the contract because the termite report was not from a bonded company and it failed to state whether there was any termite infestation.
In response to an interpleader action filed by the real estate broker who held Beltz’s deposit on the property, both parties cross-claimed against each other claim ing entitlement to the deposit monies. Subsequently, both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Hazlett’s motion and denied Beltz’s motion. We reverse.
There is no dispute that the termite company that furnished the report was not a bonded company. Furthermore, the contract plainly required a termite report which stated whether there was any termite infestation on the property, not limited to visible infestation. The contract which was prepared by Hazlett’s agent must be construed against Hazlett. The trial judge abused his discretion when he entered summary judgment for Hazlett, thereby implicitly varying the terms of the contract to require a lesser termite report than that to which the parties agreed. We hold that the contract was clear and unambiguous, therefore, the trial court could not give it a different meaning. Hamilton Construction Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 65 So. 2d 729 (Fla.1953); Bay Management, Inc. v. Beau Monde, Inc., 366 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Moreover, Beltz is entitled to summary judgment in his favor as there are not genuine issues of material fact to be decided and, as a matter of law, Hazlett breached the contract by supplying a termite report not complying with its terms.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to set aside the summary judgment previously entered in favor of Hazlett and to enter a final summary judgment in favor of Beltz.
GRIMES and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Avery Dev. Corp. v. Harlan J. Bast, II, 582 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…h the Glendale letter does not. Settlement agreements are controlled by general contract law. Robbie v. City of Miami, 469 So. 2d 1384 (Fla.1985). If the terms are clear and unambiguous, the express terms control. See Beltz v. Hazlett Enterprises, 452 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.2d DCA 1984). Otherwise, the court can inquire into the intent of the parties as evidenced by the entire document. See Home Sav. of America v. Roehner, 491 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The terms at issue here are “identical in substance” and…
-
Norman v. Gloria Farms, Inc., 766 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…1384 (Fla.1985); Woodfield Plaza, Ltd. By and Through Straub Capital Corp. v. Stiles Const. Co., 687 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). If the terms are clear and unambiguous, the express terms of the settlement control. Beltz v. Hazlett, Enterprises, 452 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984). In the present case, the terms of the settlement are clear and unambiguous. The parties agreed to accept the verdict of the jury and, therefore, there was no need for the trial court to attempt to ascertain the intent of the par…
Authorities Cited
- Hamilton Const. Co. v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Dade Cnty., 65 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1953)
- BAY Mgmt., Inc. v. Beau Monde, Inc., 366 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)