Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., s. 81-1253
Decision Date | 11 May 1982 |
Docket Number | Nos. 81-1253,81-1254,s. 81-1253 |
Citation | 413 So.2d 842 |
Parties | Alan GREENSTEIN and Cindy Greenstein, Appellants, v. GREENBROOK, LTD., and Florida Housing Capital Corporation, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George, Hartz & McNary, Miami, Amy Shield Levine, Boca Raton, for appellants.
Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine & Underberg and Phyllis K. Harte, Miami, for appellees.
Before HENDRY and PEARSON, DANIEL and FERGUSON, JJ.
Cindy and Alan Greenstein appeal from Orders of Final Judgment of Dismissal and Final Summary Judgment entered on their Complaint for Specific Performance of a contract to build and deliver title to a home. By this appeal the Greensteins seek to have declared unconscionable and unenforceable a provision in the contract which excludes specific performance as a remedy in the event of default. 1
By terms of the contract the selling price of the home to be built was $81,990.00. The Greensteins, as required, made a deposit of $8,199.00 (10%) and secured mortgage financing for the balance. In March, 1980, with construction of the home 75% complete, GREENBROOK, LTD. halted construction and defaulted allegedly because of financial difficulties. The Greensteins, given a choice of terminating the contract and receiving their deposit back or paying $24,000.00 in addition to the original contract price in order for construction of their home to be completed, chose to file suit for specific performance under the original contract.
On entering summary judgment for GREENBROOK, LTD. on the suit by Greenstein for specific performance, the trial court found:
... there is no material issue of fact in dispute, and that the Defendant, GREENBROOK, LTD., defaulted on the contract by reason of circumstances beyond its control and within the meaning of the ... contract. 2 ... that the Plaintiffs received a proper and full refund check 3 that paragraph 10 of the ... contract is not unconscionable as a matter of law....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Horowitch v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc., 6:06-CV-1703-0rl-19KRS.
...event of a breach. See, e.g., Rosenberg v. Cape Coral Plumbing, Inc., 920 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla, 2d DCA 2005); Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 413 So.2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). For these limitation clauses to be valid, Florida courts require the clauses to be mutual, unequivocal, and re......
-
In re Sav-A-Stop Inc.
...1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Hatcher v. Panama City Nursing Center, 461 So.2d 288, 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 413 So.2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Brusko v. Circle of Seminole, 436 So.2d 399, 400 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). To allow Mayfair to retain both the prepaid......
-
Barnes v. Diamond Aircraft Industries, Inc.
...of remedy provisions in contracts where the limitation is mutual, unequivocal, and reasonable. See, e.g., Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 413 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982) (finding remedy provision reasonable and enforcing the parties agreement that specific performance would not be av......
-
Ocean Dunes of Hutchinson Island Development Corp. v. Colangelo
...such stipulation, if reasonable, is controlling and excludes other consequences. [emphasis added] The court in Greenstein v. Greenbrook, Ltd., 413 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), reiterated this It seems clear fom the cases that the courts of this state will uphold any limitation of remedy pr......