Drost v. Hill, 93-2000
| Decision Date | 14 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-2000,93-2000 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1295 Vincent M. DROST, Appellant, v. Lance HILL and Jan Hill, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Erol M. Vural, Summerland Key, Beckmeyer & Mulick and Nicholas W. Mulick, for appellant.
Frigola, DeVane, Wright & Dorl, and William N. DeVane, Jr., Marathon, for appellees.
Before NESBITT, COPE and LEVY, JJ.
Vincent M. Drost appeals a final order granting specific performance. We reverse.
Drost, as landlord, entered into a real estate lease with appellees Jan V. Hill and Lance J. Hill as tenants. The initial term of the lease was for six months. The lease included an "Option for Five Year Lease." If the tenants exercised this option, they would have (a) an additional five-year term, including (b) an option to buy the real estate. The parties' initial agreement stated, in part:
The parties agree that a term of the five (5) year lease shall provide the Lessee with the option to purchase the lease property, including Lots 5 and 6. The five (5) year lease shall contain the purchase price and terms for the exercise of the purchase option by the Lessee at anytime during said lease terms.
As revealed in the language just quoted, the Option for Five Year Lease did not contain the price and terms at which the tenants would be entitled to buy the land from the landlord. The price and terms were to be established in the future.
During the initial six month lease, tenants sent the landlord a written notice of their exercise of the Option for Five Year Lease. This was followed by various negotiations and disputes between the parties. After the initial six month term expired, the landlord brought an action for possession of the premises. The tenants counterclaimed for specific performance of the Option for Five Year Lease.
The trial court granted specific performance to the tenants. It ordered the landlord to enter into a five year lease with the tenants and to prepare the document. Since the Option for Five Year Lease included an option for the tenants to buy the real estate, the court ordered the landlord to include in the five-year lease The landlord has appealed.
We conclude that the Option for Five Year Lease was unenforceable. The Option for Five Year Lease was to allow tenants to lease the property for an additional five years. The five-year lease was to include an option for the tenants to buy the real estate. However, the parties had not reached a meeting of the minds on a material term, namely, the price at which the landlord would sell, and the tenants would buy, the property. "[A] meeting of the minds of the parties on all essential elements is a prerequisite to the existence of an enforceable contract, and where it appears that the parties are continuing to negotiate as to essential terms of an agreement, there can be no meeting of the minds." Central Properties, Inc. v. Robbinson, 450 So.2d 277, 280 (Fla. 1st...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merle Wood & Assocs., Inc. v. Trinity Yachts, LLC
...bonus” without providing a specifically agreed upon amount nor a method for calculating a specific amount); Drost v. Hill, 639 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (contract unenforceable where “the parties had not reached a meeting of the minds on a material term, namely, the price”); Jac......
-
Merle Wood & Assocs., Inc. v. Trinity Yachts, LLC
...bonus" without providing a specifically agreed upon amount nor a method for calculating a specific amount); Drost v. Hill, 639 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1994) (contract unenforceable where "the parties had not reached a meeting of the minds on a material term, namely, the price"); Jac......
-
De Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church
...Mem'l Healthcare Group, Inc., 901 So.2d 305, 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Allen v. Berry, 765 So.2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Drost v. Hill, 639 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); 777 Flagler Co. v. Amerifirst Bank, 559 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Balter v. Pan Am. Bank of Hialeah, 383 So.2d 256 ......
-
DiMase v. Aquamar 176, Inc.
...to show that there was no meeting of the minds and, therefore, no enforceable contract by either party. See also Drost v. Hill, 639 So.2d 105, 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (Where it appears that the parties are continuing to negotiate as to essential terms of an agreement, there can be no meeting......
-
§ 24.01 Options to Renew or Extend
...Alter Group (June 7, 1996). NACORE has merged into an organization called Corenet Global International. [11] See, e.g., Drost v. Hill, 639 So.2d 105 (Fla. Dist. App. 1994) ("[P]arties had not reached a meeting of the minds on a material term, namely, the price at which the landlord would se......