McCloud v. Davison, 97-3369
| Decision Date | 30 October 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3369,97-3369 |
| Citation | 719 So.2d 995 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2430 Jack M. McCLOUD, Appellant, v. James O. DAVISON and Kathryn S. Davison, etc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward R. Alexander, Jr., Orlando, for Appellant.
William G. Osborne, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.
James M. McCloud appeals a final summary judgment determining that his claims are barred by the statute of frauds. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
McCloud's complaint alleged that an agreement was reached between the appellees James and Kathryn Davison, and himself, to purchase, rehabilitate and sell a parcel of real property upon which existed a single-family residence, and split the proceeds. McCloud further alleged that the Davisons, unable to secure funds to purchase the property, approached McCloud for the funds. Paragraphs 11 through 19 of the complaint allege:
11. On or before August 19, 1996, Mr. Davison, on behalf of himself and Mrs. Davison, approached Mr. McCloud about funding the acquisition of the Property. Mr. McCloud agreed to provide the funds necessary to purchase the Property in exchange for a fifty percent (50%) partnership interest in the Property.
12. On or about August 19, 1996, Mr. McCloud orally formed a partnership (the "Partnership") with Mr. and Mrs. Davison by agreeing to:(i) contribute assets to the Partnership and/or loan the Partnership money; (ii) use those assets to purchase, remodel and sell the Property; and (iii) divide the profits of the Partnership.
13. Pursuant to their agreement, McCloud was to receive fifty percent (50%) of the profits from the sale of the Property and Mr. and Mrs. Davison were to receive fifty percent (50%) of the profits from the sale of the Property.
14. Pursuant to their agreement, McCloud contributed funds to the Partnership or loaned the Partnership money, and Mr. and Mrs. Davison contributed the opportunity to purchase the Property.
15. The Property, and certain personal property, were purchased and rehabilitated by the Partnership utilizing Partnership funds.
16. Mr. McCloud rendered services as a partner to the Partnership in connection with the purchase and remodeling of the Property. In particular, Mr. McCloud completed certain repairs to the property, undertook to liquidate portions of the personal property of the Partnership and arranged for contractors to make further repairs to the Property. Mr. McCloud also provided contract negotiation services and dealt with the real estate agent selling the Property on behalf of the Partnership.
17. Mr. Davison also rendered services as a partner to the Partnership in connection with the purchase and remodeling of the Property.
18. On or about November 7, 1996, the Property was sold to third party buyers for $114,700.00 (the "Sale").
19. Following the Sale, Mr. and Mrs. Davison received the proceeds of the Sale from the buyers.
McCloud then demanded his half of the partnership profits. The Davisons deny the existence of a partnership.
Three depositions appear in the record: James Davison's, McCloud's, and that of the attorney who closed the original purchase and subsequent resale. James Davison testified that McCloud simply loaned the money for the purchase and was to receive interest. The attorney testified that when James Davison and McCloud appeared at an initial office conference with him, they indicated that Davison had an opportunity to buy the property at a bargain but needed the funds from McCloud in order to purchase it. McCloud agreed to furnish the funds if he received one-half of the partnership profits as a joint venturer. Davison indicated that due to his relationship with the seller of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quimby v. Myers
...providing for "transfer of land from one partner or joint venturer to another is within the Statute of Frauds"); McCloud v. Davison, 719 So.2d 995, 997 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998) (agreements between partners or joint venturers to buy or sell land are not within the purview of the Statute of Fra......
-
Alvarez v. Alvarez
...statute of frauds. Pursuant to section 725.01, an oral agreement to transfer an interest in land is unenforceable. McCloud v. Davison, 719 So.2d 995, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Avery v. Marine Bank & Trust Co., 216 So.2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Blynn v. Hirsch, 124 So.2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA......
-
Ballard-Cannon Dev. V. Sandman Properties
...for transfer of specific land from one party to the other.'" (quoting 2 Corbin on Contracts § 418)); see also McCloud v. Davison, 719 So.2d 995, 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) ("An oral agreement between two or more persons to go into the business of buying and selling real estate as partners or a......