Humphrys v. Jarrell
Decision Date | 16 July 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 76,76 |
Citation | 104 So.2d 404 |
Parties | NEIL L. HUMPHRYS and Mildred B. Humphrys, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Lee JARRELL and G. M. T. Jenks, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
John T. Baron, Titusville, and Shepard & Dykes, Cocoa, for appellants.
Robert Godbey, Cocoa, and Crofton, Wilson & Brewer, Titusville, for appellees.
This appeal has its source in a summary final decree entered by the chancellor in the trial court ordering as the result of a suit for specific performance that appellants as the sellers execute and deliver a conveyance of certain lands to appellees as the purchasers in compliance with their contract to sell and ordering appellees to pay the purchase price agreed upon.
A review of the case reveals that the record consists of the pleadings, the affidavits, the contract, a copy of a letter agreement, and a copy of two letters concerning an escrow arrangement. On December 20, 1955, appellants entered into a contract to sell to appellees the property involved in this controversy. The purchase price stipulated by the contract was $165 per acre, the quantity of land was 53.731 acres. The pertinent provisions of the contract are as follows:
* * *
(Emphasis supplied.)
The down payment was made; on June 19, 1956, and on January 6, 1957, respectively, interest payments were made.
In December of 1956, appellee Jarrell instructed his attorney to obtain the abstract of title and make an examination of it. The attorney made the request for the abstract in December, 1956, received and examined it, and on December 17, 1956, he reported to appellee Jarrell that in his opinion the title was not 'good and merchantable'. The appellants were not informed that it was the attorney's opinion that the title was unmarketable until sometime in the early part of January, 1957.
On January 11, 1957, appellants and appellee Jarrel entered into a letter agreement, the body of which reads as follows:
The letter agreement was signed by Jarrell but not by Jenks, a party to the original agreement and a successful party in obtaining the decree for specific performance of the contract.
On March 11, 1957, appellants informed the attorney that, nothing having been done about the suit to quiet title, they were not 'waiting another day'. They then obtained the advice of another attorney who informed them that the title to the property was marketable. Appellants thereupon and because of the claimed delay refused to proceed with the sale.
On March 27, 1957, appellees entered suit for specific performance, and on April 20, 1957, an escrow arrangement was made by them for payment of the purchase price, contingent upon delivery of a good deed of conveyance by appellants.
From the time of the preparation of the contract, the contract being dated December 20, 1955, until March 11, 1957, the negotiations were handled through one attorney. He was the attorney for appellees and acted also for the appellants who had no other legal counsel to advise them until they had notified him that the deal was off. Appellants relied on the attorney who was representing the appellees and the appellants at the same time.
The foregoing recital or summary of facts is substantially without dispute. This is not so as to other phases of the negotiations and of the factual situation upon which appellants based their decision not to consummate the sale.
The appellant in their affidavit resisting the motion for summary decree declared that they postponed the termination of the contract because they relied on the statements of the attorney and on his opinion that the property bore no marketable title, and that the supplementary letter agreement was not written at their suggestion but at the suggestion of the appellee Jarrell in the offices of the attorney. Contrarily, the affidavit of the attorney sets forth that in his opinion there were 'matters that clouded the title'. By their answer and affidavit, appellants have created the issue of the marketability of the title, particularly as it relates to the letter agreement and the reason for its making and execution.
There is also some disagreement as to the extent and the characteristics of the negotiations between January 11, 1957, the date of the letter agreement's execution, and the time of appellants' announced intention not to complete the sale. Generally, in this respect, it can be said that appellants' affidavit reveals inaction with reference to the bringing of the suit to quiet title and further shows a deterioration of affairs as a result, which thereby induced appellants' refusal to go ahead with the contract. On the other hand, generally, the affidavits of the appellee Jarrell and of the attorney who handled the matter for the parties to the time of the breaking off indicate that diligence was being exercised toward the institution of the quiet title suit, and that appellants repudiated the contract without cause.
30 F.S.A. Rule 1.36 of the Florida Rules of civil Procedure, 1954, sets forth the provisions and prescribes the proceeding for summary judgment or decree:
* * *'
Summary judgment or decree is permissible only where the pleadings, depositions, or admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment or decree as a matter of law. The burden of proof is upon the party moving for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fagan v. Central Bank of Cyprus
...a matter of right or grace but as a matter of sound judicial discretion" governed by legal and equitable principles. Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So.2d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Specific performance shall only be granted when (1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to it, (2) there is no adequ......
-
Via v. Beckett
...have the effect of trespass against fundamental and traditional processes for determining the rights of litigants." Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So.2d 404, 408 (Fla.App.1958) (citations In the present case, while the jury may well have resolved the issues in precisely the same manner as those i......
-
Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co.
...Fla.App.1960, 120 So.2d 819; Shulman v. Miller, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 274. Judge Kanner, speaking for this Court in Humphrys v. Jarrell, Fla .App.1958, 104 So.2d 404, text 408, expressed it very eloquently in the following 'Summary judgment or decree is permissible only where the pleading......
-
Free v. Free, 5D05-2393.
...well-settled legal and equitable principles. Bliss; Stein v. Brown Props., Inc., 104 So.2d 495 (Fla.1958); Martin; Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So.2d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). These considerations and applications make for the advancement of justice and fairness, which are the ultimate goals......
-
Chapter 12-1 Introduction
...3d 1009, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Gonzalez v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, 37 So. 3d 955, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). and Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So. 2d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)).[27] As discussed below, Rule 1.510(a) permits a plaintiff to move for summary judgment 20 days after suit has be......
-
Contract cases
...judicial discretion” governed by legal and equitable principles. CONTRACT CASES §3:70 Florida Causes of Action 3-30 Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So.2d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). Specific performance shall only be granted when: (1) the plaintiff is clearly entitled to it; (2) there is no adequ......