Neveils v. Thagard, No. D-214
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | WIGGINTON; CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and RAWLS |
| Citation | 145 So.2d 495 |
| Docket Number | No. D-214 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1962 |
| Parties | Rose Marie NEVEILS, Appellant, v. N. C. THAGARD, Jr., Appellee. |
Page 495
v.
N. C. THAGARD, Jr., Appellee.
Clark & Crider, Jacksonville, for appellant.
J. Ray Permenter, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellee.
WIGGINTON, Judge.
Defendant has appealed from a final judgment rendered by the trial court sitting as a judge of both the law and the facts. The principal point on appeal involves the application of the Statute of Frauds.
Appellee, as plaintiff, brought this action at common law for recovery of damages. The count of the complaint on which the case went to trial alleges in substance that the defendant, a married woman, offered to sell to plaintiff and plaintiff agreed to purchase from her a parcel of real property described in the complaint for the total purchase price of $750.00; that pursuant to the terms of this agreement plaintiff paid to defendant the entire purchase price but defendant failed and refused to deliver plaintiff title tot he property. Damages were title to the property. Damages were
From the allegations of the complaint it is eminently clear that the cause of action sued upon is based solely upon an express contract for the conveyance of land. Damages
Page 496
are claimed for the alleged breach of the terms of this contract arising from defendant's failure to deliver title of the land to plaintiff in accordance with the contract provisions. Plaintiff claims damages in the amount of the purchase price paid by him and prays for judgment.To the complaint defendant filed the defense of general denial, and as an additional defense alleged that the contract sued upon was invalid under the Statute of Frauds for the reason that it was not in writing, nor was any note or memorandum thereof signed by defendant or by any other person by her thereunto lawfully authorized.
From the complaint, and the defenses interposed thereto, the issues to be tried were the validity of the contract declared upon by plaintiff; whether there had been a breach of such contract, and if so, the amount of damages suffered by plaintiff as a result of such breach.
The evidence adduced at the trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff in whose favor the judgment was rendered, reveals that defendant purported to own an interest in the land described in the complaint, which interest she had acquired by a quitclaim deed from her predecessor in title. After inspecting what was assumed to be the property involved herein, plaintiff offered to purchase defendant's interest for the sum of $750.00. In response to this offer defendant agreed to convey to plaintiff by quitclaim deed whatever interest she held under the deed received by her from her grantor. The entire agreement between the parties was oral, and no note or memorandum thereof in writing was signed by either of the parties, nor by anyone authorized to act in their behalf. A quitclaim deed was prepared in the office of plaintiff which incorporated the exact description contained in the deed received by defendant from her grantor. This quitclaim deed was executed and acknowledged by defendant, a married woman, without the joinder of her husband. Plaintiff accepted the deed so prepared and executed and in return therefor paid defendant the agreed purchase price of $750.00.
The uncontradicted proof adduced at the trial established without dispute that the description contained in the quitclaim deed given by defendant was so defective as to amount to a nullity. The evidence is also undisputed that at the time defendant executed and delivered the deed she was a married woman, and that her husband did not join her in the conveyance. In his memorandum filed in the cause the trial judge found that because of the defective description contained in the deed delivered by defendant, and because of the non-joinder of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, Nos. 72--102
...given.' Elsberry v. Sexton, 61 Fla. 162, 54 So. 592; Williams v. Faile, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 599; Neveils v. Thagard, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 495, However, in the case sub judice, the requirements of § 725.01 (contract for more than one year) and § 672.201 (sale of goods for a price of $......
-
Hayes v. Darin Moon, Individually & Redox Chems., LLC, CASE NO. 16-80365-CIV-MARRA
...of frauds." Id. (citing Miller v. Greene, 104 So.2d 457, 462 (Fla.1958); Collier v. Brooks, 632 So.2d at 158 n. 20; Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Rohrback v. Dauer, 469 So.2d 833, 834 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hiatt v. Vaughn, 430 So.2d 597, 598 n. 2 (Fla. 4th D......
-
Harrison v. Pritchett, No. 95-3929
...statute of frauds. See Miller v. Greene, 104 So.2d 457, 462 (Fla.1958); Collier v. Brooks, 632 So.2d at 158 n. 20; Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); see also Rohrback v. Dauer, 469 So.2d 833, 834 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); and Hiatt v. Vaughn, 430 So.2d 597, 598 n. 2......
-
Rich v. Gulliver, No. 89-2935
...17 Fla. 605 (1888); 22 Fla.Jur.2d Equity § 42 (1980); cf. Janeczek v. Embry, 330 So.2d 837, 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA Affirmed. ...
-
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickard, Nos. 72--102
...given.' Elsberry v. Sexton, 61 Fla. 162, 54 So. 592; Williams v. Faile, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 599; Neveils v. Thagard, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 495, However, in the case sub judice, the requirements of § 725.01 (contract for more than one year) and § 672.201 (sale of goods for a price of $......
-
Hayes v. Darin Moon, Individually & Redox Chems., LLC, CASE NO. 16-80365-CIV-MARRA
...of frauds." Id. (citing Miller v. Greene, 104 So.2d 457, 462 (Fla.1958); Collier v. Brooks, 632 So.2d at 158 n. 20; Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Rohrback v. Dauer, 469 So.2d 833, 834 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Hiatt v. Vaughn, 430 So.2d 597, 598 n. 2 (Fla. 4th D......
-
Harrison v. Pritchett, No. 95-3929
...statute of frauds. See Miller v. Greene, 104 So.2d 457, 462 (Fla.1958); Collier v. Brooks, 632 So.2d at 158 n. 20; Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); see also Rohrback v. Dauer, 469 So.2d 833, 834 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); and Hiatt v. Vaughn, 430 So.2d 597, 598 n. 2......
-
Dysart v. Hunt, No. 79-1932
...1976), cert. denied, 339 So.2d 1167 (1976); Triax, Inc. v. City of Treasure Island, 208 So.2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Neveils v. Thagard, 145 So.2d 495, 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); Tucker v. Daugherty, 122 So.2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960), cert. denied, 125 So.2d 878 (1960); Edwards v. Young, 107 ......