Resnick v. Goldman, 61-18

• Decision Date: 30 October 1961
• Docket Number: No. 61-18,61-18
• Citation: 133 So.2d 770
• Parties: Frederick A. RESNICK, Appellant, v. Sander J. GOLDMAN, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 770

133 So.2d 770

Frederick A. RESNICK, Appellant, v. Sander J. GOLDMAN, Appellee.

No. 61-18.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1961.

Pallot, Marks, Lundeen, Poppell & Horwich, Miami, for appellant.

Leef & Ankus, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before CARROLL, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.

CARROLL, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final decree which rescinded a contract for sale of real estate, returned the down payment to the purchaser and awarded him certain damages for expenses incurred. The parties had entered into a written contract by which the appellant Resnick agreed to sell to the appellee Goldman certain real estate for the sum of $26,000. There was a down payment of $5,000.

The purchaser's examination of the title revealed that the seller Resnick no longer held title, having previously conveyed the property to Central Bank and Trust Company of Miami, Florida, 'as Trustee under the provisions of a certain Trust Agreement, dated the 15th day of August, 1957, and known as Trust No. 57-149.' That deed contained recitals which purported to give the trustee full power of sale without need for the consent or joinder of the beneficiaries under the trust agreement to which it referred. But the terms of that separate trust agreement were not revealed on the deed, and the trust agreement was not recorded.

The seller tendered a deed from the trustee. Contending title was unmarketable, the purchaser refused it, and filed this suit which resulted in the decree appealed.

Appellant argues (1) that there was no equity jurisdiction, (2) that the title was marketable, and (3) that it was error to award the damages. As to the first contention, the nature of the relief granted shows that equity jurisdiction was properly invoked. Equity takes cognizance of suits for rescission of executory contracts to convey, ¹ and a claim by a purchaser for return of a down payment under such a contract is properly brought in equity where to aid recovery a lien may be claimed and imposed on the property involved ².

The chancellor correctly recognized that the bank held the property in trust, and not in fee simple under § 689.07, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. There were statements in the deed of the 'nature and purposes of the trust' which took it out of the statute. The difficulty resulted from the fact that the trust terms recited in the deed could not be relied upon, because of the possibility of conflict with the terms of the particular trust agreement also referred to in the deed but otherwise undisclosed. Therefore the chancellor correctly held that the purchaser was entitled to regard the title as unmarketable and was excused from performance.

Where the terms of a trust agreement so authorize and provide expressly or impliedly, a trustee may sell trust property without the need of joinder or assent of the cestui que trust ³. In the instant case, although the title was conveyed to the bank as trustee under the provisions of a described trust agreement, the trust agreement was not recorded and its provisions were not produced for the inspection of the purchaser. Thus, when a deed from the trustee was tendered, the purchaser, being unadvised as to the terms of the trust agreement, had no way of knowing whether, according to the provisions thereof, the deed from the trustee would be valid or invalid. In those circumstances the uncertainty as to the terms of the trust determined the unmarketability of the title. Ware v. Busch, 108 Fla. 153, 146 So. 197, 198; Adams v. Whittle, 101 Fla. 705, 135 So. 152, 155. See Patton on Land Titles (2d Ed. 1957), § 417; 33 Fla.Jur., Vendor & Purchaser, §§ 62, 70-71.

The damages allowed were proper under the...