SHARA KAPLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE LARATTE, FILS, 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 a seller's anticipatory breach of real estate contracts relieved the buyer of any duty to tender performance, even if the buyer had not yet met certain conditions like placing deposits in escrow.
The buyer and seller signed two real estate contracts on the same day. Later that day, the seller informed the buyer he would not go through with the …
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 Repudiation Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant brought this suit for specific performance against the appellee, contending that the appellee had anticipatorily breached two contracts to sell real estate to appellant. The trial court found that both parties were in default and denied specific performance, but we reverse.
The buyer and seller signed the two contracts on May 20, 2004, but later that same day the seller informed the buyer that he would not go through with the sale. He followed the telephone call up with a letter which confirmed it. Although this anticipatory breach was undisputed, and found by the court to be the actual cause of the closing failing to occur, the court concluded that the buyer was also in default and denied relief. The default of the buyer, according to the court, was the failure to place the deposits in escrow on the same day that the contracts were executed.
Once the seller informed the buyer by telephone that he was not going to perform, however, the buyer had an immediate cause of action against the seller because of the anticipatory breach, which relieved her of any duty to tender performance. Hosp. Mortgage Group v. First Prudential Dev. Corp., 411 So. 2d 181 (Fla.1982). When the seller announced he was repudiating the contract on the same day he signed it, the buyer still had time to comply with the deposit provisions. Once the seller called, she had no duty to make the deposits as a condition to holding the seller to the contracts. There was accordingly no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the buyer was not entitled to relief. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of the buyer for specific performance.
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mastec, Inc. v. TJS, LLC, 979 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…posit in his trust account. Furthermore, the trial court did not find that a tender by the Buyers was excused by the Seller’s prior repudiation of the Contract, and such a finding would not have been supported by the evidence. Cf. Kaplan v. Laratte, 944 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (finding that a buyer’s duty to make deposits due under two real estate contracts was excused where the seller repudiated the contracts when the buyer still had time to make the deposits). Here, the Contract provided — in b…
-
Trinity Quadrille, LLC v. Opera Place, LLC, 42 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…s pending against the property within the time provided, and seeking, in pertinent part, the return of its deposit. The trial court denied Trinity’s motion for summary judgment, but granted Opera’s motion for summary judgment. In Kaplan v. Laratte, 944 So. 2d 1074, 1074-75 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), a seller anti-cipatorily breached two contracts the same day they were signed by announcing his refusal to go through with the sales. The buyer brought suit for specific performance, but the trial court held that the bu…
-
Hitchens v. Murrell (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Hosp. Mortg. Grp. v. First Prudential Dev. Corp., 411 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1982)