INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
VINH ON PROPERTY, INC. AND ANDREW PONNOCK, 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.
International Christian Fellowship leased property from Vinh On Property and held a right of first refusal. When Ponnock made an offer to purchase, International attempted to exercise its right of first refusal but offered different terms. The trial court granted summary judgment for Vinh, finding International had not properly exercised its right of first refusal, and affirmed on appeal.
International did not properly exercise its right of first refusal because its offer did not match the essential terms of Ponnock's offer, including the closing date, financing, and Vinh's duty to repair. Summary judgment was proper because there was no material issue of fact—the documents clearly showed the term disparities.
[1] A right of first refusal is activated when the property owner manifests a willingness to accept a third party's offer.
[2] To properly exercise a right of first refusal, the option holder must match the essential terms and conditions of the third party's good faith offer.
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“A right of first refusal is a right to elect to take specified property at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those contained in a good faith offer by a third person if the owner manifests a willingness to accept the offer.”
Establishes the legal standard for exercising a right of first refusal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInternational Christian Fellowship, Inc. leased property from Vinh On Property, Inc., and the lease included a right of first refusal. Ponnock made an…
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 Right Of First Refusal cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, J.
Appellant, International Christian Fellowship, Inc. (“International”), appeals the trial court’s grant of final summary judgment to Appellee, Vinh On Property, Inc. (“Vinh”), and the trial court’s final judgment in favor of Appellee, Andrew Pon-nock, on his counterclaim against International. International leased property from Vinh, and its lease contained a right of first refusal. Ponnock made an offer to buy the property and International attempted to exercise its right of first refusal, but made an offer with differing terms. Vinh filed a declaratory judgment action to have the court determine which contract was valid. The trial court determined International had not properly exercised its right of first refusal and found the Pon-nock contract to be the valid contract. We find International’s arguments unpersuasive and affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
“The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” 5th Ave. Real Estate Dev., Inc. v. Aeacus Real Estate Ltd., 876 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). .“In reviewing a summary judgment, this court ‘must consider the evidence contained in the record, including any supporting affidavits, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party ... and if the slightest doubt exists, the summary judgment must be reversed.’ ” 5th Ave., 876 So. 2d at 1221 (quoting Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490, 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)).
In this case, the trial court determined there was no material issue of fact, as the documents clearly revealed that International failed to match the terms of the Ponnock contract, thereby improperly exercising its right of first refusal. “A right of first refusal is a right to elect to take specified property at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as those contained in a good faith offer by a third person if the owner manifests a willingness to accept the offer.” Power v. Power, 864 So. 2d 528, 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “A right of first refusal exercise need only be identical to the offer terms which are essential.” Schwey v. Vara, 674 So. 2d 935, 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(citing Coastal Bay Golf Club, Inc. v. Holbein, 231 So. 2d 854, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)).
We find the trial court did not err in making this determination. The contract delivered by International did not match numerous terms found in the Ponnock contract, including details such as the closing date, financing and Vinh’s duty to repair the property. Moreover, while Vinh inadvertently sent a copy of the contract to International which only had its agent’s initials on it, it was Vinh’s position that it had a fully-executed, fully-initialed contract with Ponnock. Vinh’s willingness to accept Ponnock’s offer is the point at which International’s right of first refusal is activated. See Power, 864 So. 2d at 524. The evidence supported this assertion, and International did not introduce evidence to the contrary. Therefore, all the evidence at the hearing supported Vinh’s and Pon-nock’s position and showed there was no material issue of fact precluding a grant of summary judgment.
We affirm.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dellatorre v. Buca, Inc., 211 So. 3d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…nuine issues of material fact and that Appellant was himself negligent in eating the broken mussel shell. Analysis “The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Int’l Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Vinh on Prop., Inc., 954 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting 5th Ave. Real Estate Dev., Inc. v. Aeacus Real Estate Ltd. P’ship, 876 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). In order for a party to prevail under summary judgment, he or she must satisfy two steps: “[t]he judgm…
-
BK Marine Constr., Inc. v. Skyline Steel, LLC, 231 So. 3d 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ue on the Rental Contract, a total of $776,853.27. BKM timely appealed this final summary judgment order. Analysis “The standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Int'l Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Vinh on Prop., Inc., 954 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting 5th Ave. Real Estate Dev., Inc. v. Aeacus Real Estate Ltd. P’ship, 876 So. 2d 1220, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)). “Summary judgment, is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is e…
-
Castelli v. Castelli, 159 So. 3d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…nt to be in contempt for violating the Listing Order by failing to execute the offer. The trial court also found Appellant did not exercise his right of first refusal as required by International Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Vinh on Property, Inc., 954 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). The trial court appointed independent counsel to act as Appellant’s attorney-in-fact to sell the former marital home. The issue before the court on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding Appellant did not sufficient…
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
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- Krol v. City OF Orlando, 778 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Coastal BAY Golf Club, Inc. v. Holbein, 231 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- 5th Ave. Real Est. Dev., Inc. v. Aeacus Real Est. Ltd. P'ship, 876 So. 2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Moore v. State, 674 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)