Rod-Lyn Corp. v. DeBelay, ROD-LYN
| Decision Date | 10 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 69--219,ROD-LYN,69--420,s. 69--219 |
| Citation | 231 So.2d 233 |
| Parties | CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Julius DeBELAY, Appellee.CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Clyde M. BANKS, doing business as Banks Companies (not Inc.), Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank, Strelkow & Marx, Miami Beach, Carey, Dwyer, Austin, Cole & Selwood, and Edward A. Perse, Miami, for appellant.
Frederick O. Scheske, Shutts & Bowen, and Herbert L. Nadeau, Miami, for appellees.
Before PEARSON, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.
These appeals are by the same appellant, but the appellees are different. The cases were tried separately, and separate final judgments were entered. They were consolidated for oral argument and will be considered together because they grew out of the same transaction.
Appeal number 69--219 is brought by Rod-Lyn Corporation from a summary final judgment for the plaintiff-appellee, Julius DeBelay. The action was by DeBelay for a return of money deposited pursuant to a contract to purchase realty. The summary final judgment directed the return to DeBelay of the deposit held by an escrow agent.
Appellant's main contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred in finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the obligation of the appellant vendor to convey title at the time of the closing. Appellant urges that, because of the wording of the deposit-receipt contract for the sale, it was not required to convey good and marketable title at the closing. The contract construed by the court is upon a standard printed form of the Miami Board of Realtors. The contract provided for a closing on a specific day but also provided that the vendor had 60 days to cure defects found in the title upon examination of the abstract. It is contended that this circumstance implied a meaning that the purchase price should be paid on the closing date and that the vendor would not be required to convey a marketable title until a later date.
We agree with the trial court that appellant's position is untenable in view of the rule of construction that a court must be guided by the entirety of a contract and not by isolated statements in the contract. Paddock v. Bay Concrete Industries, Inc., Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 313. The trial judge correctly determined that a reading of this contract as a whole permitted no other construction than the usual provision that marketable title is to be conveyed at the time of the closing.
There are other matters advanced by the appellees which would in our opinion render appellant's position...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Hanratty
...See Rule 1.110(d), RCP, 30 F.S.A.; Sonnenblick-Goldman of Miami Corp. v. Feldman, Fla.App.1972, 266 So.2d 48; Rod-Lyn Corporation v. DeBelay, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 233; Sorensen v. Eshelman, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 597; Gordon International Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land & Tit......
-
Ocean Bank of Miami v. La Esquina Presidencial, Inc.
...Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So.2d 390 (Fla.1958); Jerry's, Inc. v. City of Miami, 591 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Rod-Lyn Corp. v. DeBelay, 231 So.2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 237 So.2d 754 (Fla.1970). The same rule applies in construing letters of Where a letter of credit is fairly susc......
-
Lyn-Rand Metal Fabrications, Co., Inc. v. American Accessories Corp., LYN-RAND
...any of its affirmative defenses. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.110(d); Uvesco, Inc. v. Petersen, 295 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Rod-Lyn Corp. v. DeBelay, 231 So.2d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 238 So.2d 108 (Fla.1970). Additionally, we find that Lyn-Rand's remaining points lack Accordingly, we aff......
-
Rod-Lyn Corporation v. Banks
...BANKS, doing business as Banks Companies (Not Inc.). No. 39565. Supreme Court of Florida. April 1970. Certiorari denied without opinion. 231 So.2d 233. ...