RICKIE L. HELVIE, ET AL.,
v.
MIAMI MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.
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 Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a contract rescission case, finding that the buyers had waived their right to rescind through subsequent actions and were guilty of laches.
Yes, the court held that the appellants waived their right to rescind by entering into a resale agreement and were guilty of laches due to the significant delay in asserting their rescission claim.
“It appears that after the appellants became dissatisfied with the delay in the construction of the improvements some eighteen months after executing the contract instead of rescinding at that time, they made an agreement with defendant to resell the lots for their account at an advance in price, and then, when the defendant was not able to effect such resale, the appellants, some five years later, decided to rescind.”
This quote outlines the key actions by the appellants that led the court to find waiver and laches.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants purchased cemetery lots for investment, but sued for rescission due to the vendor's non-performance of improvement covenants. After dissati…
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 Waiver Of Right To Rescind cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a bill filed by the appellants, for the rescission of a contract for the purchase, for speculative or investment purposes, of certain cemetery lots, on account of non-performance by the vendor of covenants to make improvements, and to recover the partial payments already made. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the bill upon the ground that the facts alleged showed that the appellants had waived their right to rescind and had also been guilty of laches in the assertion of such right, if any. It appears that after the appellants became dissatisfied with the delay in the construction of the improvements some eighteen months after executing the contract instead of *282rescinding at that time, they made an agreement with defendant to resell the lots for their account at an advance in price, and then, when the defendant was not able to effect such resale, the appellants, some five years later, decided to rescind. The Chancellor sustained the motion to dismiss and from that order this appeal was taken. Whatever rights, if any, the appellants may be able to assert in defense of any action that might be brought against them to enforce the payment of the balance due on the purchase price, which is a question that is not now before us, we cannot say that the court below was in error in granting the motion to dismiss. It appears from the facts alleged in the bill that the motion wasi well founded. The order of dismissal will therefore be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Buford, J., concur.
Davis, C. J., concurs in the opinion and judgment.