Rolland v. Thompson, V--1

• Decision Date: 16 January 1975
• Docket Number: No. V--1,V--1
• Citation: 305 So.2d 239
• Parties: Madeline D. ROLLAND, Appellant, v. Ford L. THOMPSON, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 239

305 So.2d 239

Madeline D. ROLLAND, Appellant, v. Ford L. THOMPSON, Appellee.

No. V--1.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 16, 1975.

A. Frank O'Kelley and Helen C. Ellis, of Keen, O'Kelley & Spitz, Tallahassee, for appellant.

M. Stephen Turner, of Thompson, Wadsworth & Messer, Tallahassee, for appellee.

CORRECTED OPINION.

BOYER, Judge.

In 1967 a parcel of land was acquired as tenants in common by Alan Hartman, Frederick Conliffe and E. O. Rolland. Appellant here is the successor to the interest of E. O. Rolland. Ford L. Thompson, appellee here, an attorney, represented Hartman, Conliffe and Rolland incident to the acquisition of the property. Conliffe and Hartman are residents of Massachusetts. Rolland was, and appellant is, a resident of Florida. In January of 1973 Hartman visited Mrs. Rolland in Tallahassee, Florida, informing her that he and Conliffe wanted to sell their two-thirds interest in the subject property, asking if Mrs. Rolland was interested in purchasing. Several offers and counter-offers were thereafter made. Telephone conversations were confirmed by correspondence. In the meantime Hartman and Conliffe were negotiating with Thompson for the sale of their two-thirds interest in the same property. Rolland did not know of the negotiations with Thompson for the sale of their two-thirds interest in the same property. Rolland did not know of the negotiations with Thompson and there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the trial judge's apparent finding that Thompson did not know of the negotiations with Rolland. (It is appropriate to here recite that there has never been any allegation in this proceeding of any professional misconduct nor any unethical conduct on the part of Thompson and such was specifically stipulated during the trial below.)

The trial judge found that: 'Seemingly, Hartman and Conliffe 'were playing off defendant and plaintiff against each other' in an effort to escalate the price and capture the best and most attractive bargain for the property 'without much regard to ethics or friendship'.'

Thompson ultimately acquired from Hartman and Conliffe their undivided two-thirds interest. Mrs. Rolland claimed that a certain letter from Conliffe to her dated February 27, 1973 coupled with a letter from her to both Hartman and Conliffe dated March 8, 1973, constituted a contract for the sale and purchase of said property. She further claimed that Thompson was aware thereof and that he acquired his title from Hartman and Conliffe with knowledge of the contract between them and Mrs. Rolland, thereby entitling Mrs. Rolland to require by specific performance a conveyance of said property to her by Thompson.

Thompson filed suit in the Circuit Court against Mrs. Rolland seeking to have his title quieted as to her claim based upon the alleged contract between her and...