Alaimo v. Tirone, 73--1330
| Decision Date | 26 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73--1330,73--1330 |
| Citation | 297 So.2d 584 |
| Parties | Stephen L. ALAIMO and Jean R. Alaimo, Appellants, v. Antonio TIRONE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Koppen & Watkins, Miami, for appellants.
Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Ward, Heller & Kaplan, Shevin & Shevin, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Defendant-appellants seek review of an order enforcing a settlement agreement.
In September 1972, one Vogel executed a deposit receipt agreement with the plaintiff-appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Tirone, to purchase certain real property for $200,000. By the terms thereof, Vogel agreed to pay $74,600 in cash, assume a $50,800 first mortgage and the plaintiff-sellers agreed to take back a purchase money mortgage for $74,600 at 7 1/2% Interest payable in 72 equal monthly installments over six years. Vogel escrowed $20,000 as a downpayment with the broker, The Keyes Company as escrow agent. Subsequently, Vogel refused to close and on his behalf, The Keyes Company found the defendant-appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Alaimo, who entered into a contract on February 7, 1973 to purchase the property from Vogel who assigned to them his interest in the original contract with the appellees. The purchase agreement between Vogel and the Alaimos contained essentially the same items as the agreement between the Tirones and Vogel with the exception of the provision for an interest rate of 7 1/4% On the purchase money mortgage as opposed to the 7 1/2% Rate provided for in the Vogel-Tirone contract. Appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Alaimo, also deposited $20,000 in escrow with The Keyes Company. Thereafter, appellants herein instituted suit against The Keyes Company for return of their deposit and as grounds therefor alleged that they had attempted to close the transaction with the appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Tirone, but were unable to do so. Mr. and Mrs. Tirone in turn filed a complaint seeking specific performance, declaratory relief, or forfeiture of the deposits and alleged therein that they were ready, willing and able to close, but that the appellants, Mr. and Mrs. Alaimo, tried to impose terms contrary to the September 1972 Vogel-Tirone contract for the sale of the subject property. While the litigation was pending, counsel for the respective parties with full authorization from them reached oral agreement which was rendered to writing in an instrument entitled 'Stipulated Final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sockolof v. Eden Point North Condominium Ass'n, Inc., 81-2311
...that substantive settlements be in writing. See, e.g., Davies v. Canco Enterprises, 350 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Rule 1.030(d) was repealed effective July 1, 1979, and the settlement agreement here was entered into August 13, 1981. Thu......
-
Buskirk v. Suddath of South Florida, Inc.
...Davies v. Canco Enterprises, 350 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Moore v. Gunning, 328 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Appellees, however, argue that Rule 2.060(g), 1 Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, governs the instant case, and that......
-
Moore v. Gunning, 75--899
...to include All private agreements or consents between parties or their attorneys. In a recent case directly on point, Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (3rd DCA Fla.1974), Rule 1.030(d) RCP was held to render unenforceable an out-of-court settlement agreement which had not been subscribed by ......
-
Davies v. Canco Enterprises
...in a lawsuit between the parties or their attorneys which does not conform with these formalities is unenforceable. Alaimo v. Tirone, 297 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Melfi Construction, Inc. v. Coastal Theaters, Inc., 279 So.2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA The stipulation and settlement agreement in......