Bay Club, Inc. v. Brickell Bay Club, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--26,74--26 |
| Citation | 293 So.2d 137 |
| Parties | The BAY CLUB, INC., et al., Appellants, v. BRICKELL BAY CLUB, INC., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack D. Burris, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman and Andrew C. Hall, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Defendant-appellants take this interlocutory appeal to review an order dismissing their counterclaim for specific performance with prejudice and striking the lis pendens filed by them in this cause.
Plaintiff-appellees on December 30, 1971 executed a written agreement with defendant-appellants to lease a portion of the Brickell Bay Club condominium which was then in the early stages of construction for the operation of a private club by the defendants. The agreement was contingent upon the defendants being able to obtain a zoning variance to permit the operation of the proposed club. Thereafter, on April 2, 1973 plaintiffs filed a complaint for rescission of the above agreement and alleged therein that defendants were in default. In response thereto, defendants answered and counterclaimed for specific performance. Counterclaimants alleged (1) that they had expended large sums of money and effort in reliance upon the subject agreement, (2) that the contemplated zoning variance had been obtained, and (3) that they were ready, willing and able to deposit the required security deposit, but plaintiffs had consistently refused to execute the lease. In addition, countercomplainants placed a lis pendens on the land upon which the Brickell Bay Club was being constructed. Thereafter, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that the instrument upon which the claim was based was insufficient to form a predicate for a claim of specific performance. The motion to dismiss was granted by the chancellor who dismissed the counterclaim for specific performance with prejudice and cancelled the lis pendens. However, appellants were given leave to file an amended counterclaim for damages. Their motion for rehearing being denied, appellant-counterclaimants take this interlocutory appeal.
The question presented for our determination is whether the agreement in the case sub judice is one upon which specific performance may be granted.
In order for a court of equity to decree specific performance of a contract, the terms of the agreement must be clear, definite, certain and complete, for the equitable remedy of specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church
...Drost v. Hill, 639 So.2d at 106; Lasseter v. Dauer, 211 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); see also Bay Club, Inc. v. Brickell Bay Club, Inc., 293 So.2d 137, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Further, the acceptance of the offer must be communicated to the offeror. Kendel v. Pontious, 261 So.2d 167, ......
-
Gant v. Ragone
...2009) (applying Pennsylvania law and rejecting claim for specific performance as stand-alone claim); Bay Club, Inc. v. Brickell Bay Club, Inc., 293 So. 2d 137, 138 (Fla. Dist. Ct. 1974) (recognizing that specific performance is an equitable remedy for a breach of contract, not an independen......
-
Muñiz v. Crystal Lake Project, LLC
...have entered into an agreement that is definite, certain, and complete in all of its essential terms. Bay Club, Inc. v. Brickell Bay Club, Inc., 293 So.2d 137, 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also 330 Michigan Ave., Inc. v. Cambridge Hotel, Inc., 183 So.2d 725, 726-27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)("Specif......
-
Kruse v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...have actually entered into an agreement that is definite and certain in all of its essential elements." Bay Club, Inc. v. Brickell Bay Club, Inc., 293 So. 2d 137, 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Florida courts have held that a decree of specific performance, which is an equitable remedy granted at ......