Lindgren v. Van Fleet

• Decision Date: 11 June 1959
• Docket Number: Nos. 57-75,57-137,s. 57-75
• Parties: A. W. LINDGREN and Anna Belle Lindgren, his wife, Appellants, v. Waller VAN FLEET, Appellee. Henry B. SPECHLER and Ruth B. Spechler, his wife, Appellants, v. Waller VAN FLEET, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 881

112 So.2d 881

A. W. LINDGREN and Anna Belle Lindgren, his wife, Appellants, v. Waller VAN FLEET, Appellee.

Henry B. SPECHLER and Ruth B. Spechler, his wife, Appellants, v. Waller VAN FLEET, Appellee.

Nos. 57-75, 57-137.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 11, 1959.

Rehearing Denied July 1, 1959.

Ray M. Watson, Miami, for appellants Lindgren; Anderson & Nadeau, Miami, for appellants Spechler.

Talbot W. Trammell, Miami, for appellee.

GIBLIN, VINCENT C., Associate Judge.

The chancellor below, by the final decree from which these appeals have been prosecuted, ¹ required the specific enforcement of an oral contract entered into in the early part of 1950 by which A. W. Lindgren (who owned the five-acre tract of land involved in this litigation) and Anna Belle Lindgren, his wife (who had an inchoate dower interest) agreed to convey the tract to Waller Van Fleet and Mildred Irene Van Fleet, his wife, for $1,200.

At the time the oral contract was entered into Van Fleet paid to Lindgren a 'binder' of $222.75. The payment was evidenced by an undated receipt, signed by Lindgren, but not by his wife. In the receipt the 'binder' was designated as a 'part payment on 5 acres of land located south of Waldin Drive and west of Country Club Road, E 1/2 of SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 3-57-38.' The amount of the full purchase price was not specified in the receipt, nor were any of the terms or conditions of the oral contract incorporated in the receipt. There was no written evidence of the oral contract other than the receipt.

Van Fleet suggested, and Lindgren agreed, when the partial payment was made, that the transfer of the title should be consummated within 30 days at the office of the National Title Company in Miami; and Lindgren assured Van Fleet that an abstract of title would be delivered to the title company 'in a few days.'

During the ensuing three months Van Fleet, in several telephone conversations with Lindgren, complained of the latter's failure to deliver the abstract to the title company and voiced his readiness to pay the balance of the purchase price and to effectuate the oral contract. The only response elicited was Lindgren's promise that he would 'get around to it some day' and deliver the abstract to the title company.

The abstract was never delivered; and there was no further communication, oral or written, between Van Fleet or his wife and Lindgren or his wife, until November, 1955, more than five years after the last of the telephone conversations.

In 1954 Van Fleet and his wife were divorced. Before the divorce suit was instituted, or while it was pending, they effected an amicable settlement of their property rights and financial matters. On August 30, 1954, as an incident to such settlement, they both executed a quit-claim deed by which they 'remised, released and quitclaimed. * * * all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which [they had] in and to the five-acre tract' to her. The deed was recorded on September 2, 1954, in the public records of Dade County.

In November, 1955, Van Fleet and his former wife went to Lindgren's home and advised him of their desire to pay the balance of the purchase price and to 'close the deal.' Lindgren's reply was that 'the property has gone up in value down there a whole lot since we talked before about this.' He asked that he be given time to consider the matter. Six or seven weeks elapsed, during which Van Fleet and his former wife telephoned Lindgren several times, urging him to 'close the deal.' Finally, in the last of such conversations, Lindgren advised them that he would not sell the property at the price which they had offered to pay, but that he was willing to refund the partial payment of $222.75, 'with interest.'

On February 7, 1956, Van Fleet's former wife, because of her unwillingness 'to go to court,' executed a quit-claim deed by which she 'remised, released and quit-claimed. * * * all the right, title, interest, claim and demand which [she had] in and to [the five-acre tract]' to him. For the deed he gave her his note by which he promised to pay her $222.75, with five per cent. interest, 'when and if this property [is] settled, regardless of the outcome.' In other words, as he testified at the trial before the chancellor, he is 'going to give her the same amount that Mr. Lindgren offered.' The quit-claim deed from Van Fleet's former wife to him was not recorded in the public records.

On March 15, 1956, eight months prior to the institution by Van Fleet of the suit in which the challenged decree was entered, Lindgren and his wife, by their warranty deed, conveyed the five-acre tract to Henry Spechler and Ruth B. Spechler, his wife, who paid $5,500 for the property.

In his final decree the chancellor held that the Spechlers 'had notice of the plaintiff's contract, making their purchase of the property subject to plaintiff's rights under this decree.' The only evidentiary basis for the chancellor's holding was that the Spechlers' attorney, in examining...