EVA LARSEN AND MADELINE MAJOCCHI, APPELLANTS,
v.
MIAMI GARDENS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Eva Larsen and Madeline Majocchi appealed a judgment in a breach of contract dispute with Miami Gardens Development Corporation over the construction and sale of a house. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that equities favored the defendant but remanded to remove improperly awarded attorneys' fees from the damages award.
The trial court correctly found that equities favored the defendant and properly awarded defendant damages, but the appellate court reversed the inclusion of attorneys' fees as improper damages and remanded for reduction of the judgment by that amount.
[1] A contract provision allowing a seller to retain a deposit as liquidated damages is enforceable if the seller is not in breach of the contract.
[2] A party may elect to terminate a contract when the other party fails to meet a contractual completion deadline.
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 defendant agrees to have the subject dwelling completed and ready for occupancy within six months from the date of the contract or within a reasonable time thereafter, and if the dwelling is not completed within that time, the seller, at the option of the purchasers, shall refund to the purchasers the deposit money, and the contract shall be null and void”
Establishes the contractual obligation regarding timely completion and the remedy available to purchasers if not met
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn January 13, 1972, plaintiffs entered into a written contract with defendant to construct and convey a house for a $5,000 deposit. The contract requ…
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 Certificate Of Occupancy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellants seek review of an adverse final judgment awarding defendant-appellee damages in a breach of contract action.
On January 13, 1972 plaintiffs, Eva Larsen and Madeline Majocchi, entered into a written contract whereby the defendant, Miami Gardens Development Corporation, agreed to construct a house and convey it to the plaintiffs.
Pursuant to the terms thereof, plaintiffs tendered to the defendant a $5,000 deposit. The contract provided, inter alia: (1) that the defendant agrees to have the subject dwelling completed and ready for occupancy within six months from the date of the contract or within a reasonable time thereafter, and if the dwelling is not completed within that time, the seller, at the option of the purchasers, shall refund to the purchasers the deposit money, and the contract shall be null and void, and (2) that the approval of the building department as to the construction and the certificate of occupancy obtained from Dade County shall constitute sufficient evidence of completion in a satisfactory and workmanlike manner. Although the closing was set for July 13, 1972, plaintiffs agreed to a postponement to allow the defendant to obtain kitchen cabinets and Florida Power & Light Company to complete the necessary wire installation. The parties agreed to close on August 1, 1972.
However, on that date defendant informed plaintiffs that the closing could not take place until August 11, 1972 because no certificate of occupancy had been issued. By letter dated August 8, 1972 plaintiffs elected to terminate the agreement.
On August 23, 1972 defendant notified the plaintiffs by telegram that it was ready, willing and able to complete the sale and requested closing on either August 25 or 28, 1972. Plaintiffs refused to close and thereupon defendant exercised its contract option to retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed the instant complaint against the defendant wherein they sought damages and return of their deposit for breach of contract within the time agreed. A trial on the issue of liability was held and the trial court found that the equities were with the defendant, but refused to allow the defendant to retain plaintiffs’ $5,000 deposit as liquidated damages. Thereafter, a separate trial was held on the issue of damages at the conclusion of which the trial judge entered final judgment for the defendant in the sum of $4,904.34 and ordered defendant to return to plaintiffs the excess of the deposit over that amount. Plaintiff-appellants appeal therefrom.
After a careful examination of the record on appeal, we find there was competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination that the equities in the cause are with the defendant. We also affirm the items awarded as damages with the exception of the attorneys’ fees which were incurred in representing the defendant as there was no legal basis therefor in the case sub judice. See 9A Fla.Jur. Damages § 79 (1972).
Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court to reduce the $4,904.34 final judgment by the amount of attorneys’ fees incurred in representing the defendant which improperly was included as an item of damages. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir. 1983)….g., Westcap Government Securities, Inc., 697 F. 2d at 914; Blaustein v. Weiss, 409 So. 2d 103 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982); Jackson v. Holmes, 307 So. 2d 470 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.), cert. denied, 318 So. 2d 404 (Fla.1975); Larsen v. Miami Gardens Dev. Corp., 299 So. 2d 50 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974); National Exhibition Co. v. Ball, 139 So. 2d 489 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1962). Indeed, a Florida court has refused to countenance unilateral cancellation in that context even when the contract stipulated that time was of the essence…
-
Westcap Gov't Sec., Inc. v. Homestead AIR Force Base Fed. Credit Union, 697 F.2d 911 (11th Cir. 1983)…n to discharge the party aggrieved by the failure to perform strictly on time. Id. (citation omitted). Minor delay has also been held not to be a basis for rescission in the context of construction contracts. See Larsen v. Miami Gardens Dev. Corp., 299 So. 2d 50 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1974). In Blaustein v. Weiss, 409 So. 2d 103 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982), the court surveyed Florida contract law and found that time should be considered of the essence in three circumstances: (1) where there has been an express recita…