Skinner v. Haugseth

• Decision Date: 04 February 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1318,82-1318
• Citation: 426 So.2d 1127
• Parties: Sandra SKINNER and Alex Easton, Appellants, v. William K. HAUGSETH, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1127

426 So.2d 1127

Sandra SKINNER and Alex Easton, Appellants, v. William K. HAUGSETH, Appellee.

No. 82-1318.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

Feb. 4, 1983.

Lawrence E. Lyman, St. Petersburg, for appellant Sandra Skinner.

Jack S. Carey of Carey & Harrison, St. Petersburg, for appellant Alex Easton.

Seymour A. Gordon of Gay & Gordon, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellee.

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order dismissing with prejudice an amended complaint for specific performance.

The complaint was filed by William and Sandra Skinner, his wife, and Alex Easton against William Haugseth. After the court granted Haugseth's motion to dismiss, an amended complaint was filed only in the names of Sandra Skinner and Alex Easton, thereby dropping William Skinner from the suit. They alleged that on November 23, 1981, they offered to purchase from Haugseth a certain parcel of real estate and that, as indicated on the contract attached to the complaint, Haugseth accepted the offer on November 27, 1981. They further alleged that on or before January 15, 1982, they were ready, willing and able to perform pursuant to the terms of the contract but that Haugseth declined to consummate the sale.

The sales contract was written on a printed form and dated November 23, 1981. It first recited that "William and Sandra Skinner, Alex Easton, et al.--hereinafter called the purchaser" had deposited $100 "as earnest money and in part payment on account of the purchase price" of the real estate thereafter described. The total purchase price of $15,000 was payable as follows: $100 down, $1400 additional earnest money within seven days, $7500 cash at closing and the assumption of a $6000 mortgage. The broker acknowledged receipt of the deposit subject to certain conditions customary in real estate sales contracts. The closing date was specified as January 15, 1982.

Beneath the signature of the real estate broker there appeared the following words, "I/we hereby agree to purchase the above described property at the price and upon the terms and conditions above set forth. I/we understand that this is a legally binding contract." The attested signatures of Alex K. Easton and Sandra Skinner, as purchasers, followed this language. The next section of the contract stated that "I/we hereby accept the offer and agree to deliver the above described property at the price and upon the terms and conditions above stated." William Haugseth's attested signature then followed with the notation that he had signed as seller on November 27, 1981.

The record establishes that the amended complaint was dismissed because William Skinner failed to sign the contract. On appeal, Sandra Skinner and Alex Easton argue that the contract was enforceable because their signatures gave it mutuality and Haugseth's signature satisfied the statute of frauds. Haugseth argues that the contract was not binding until all of the parties signed it. Anticipating the possible argument that William Skinner had ratified the contract by joining in the lawsuit, Haugseth also points out that he repudiated the contract long before this occurred.

The only Florida case reasonably relevant to the subject is Hughes v. Russell, 391 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Mr. Russell, a New York resident on a business trip to West Palm Beach, inspected a home owned by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes. Mr. Russell decided that he and his wife would purchase it for the agreed price of $185,000. He instructed his wife who was in New York and who had never seen the home to execute and return the deposit receipt contract prepared by the Hughes'. While the contract referred to Mr. and Mrs. Russell as the purchaser, only Mrs. Russell signed it. Mrs. Russell placed the 10% deposit in trust with the broker and returned the contract to Florida where the sellers then executed it. Later, the Russells decided not to close the transaction.

Mrs. Russell filed suit to terminate the contract and obtain the return of the $18,500 deposit. The complaint alleged that the contract was subject to termite and plumbing inspections and that the reports of these inspections were unsatisfactory. The defendants admitted the existence of the contract but asserted that the plaintiffs had breached it. They sought to retain the deposit as liquidated damages under the contract. At the conclusion of the trial, the court announced that the contract was void because it had not been signed by Mr. Russell. Since the contract was unenforceable, the court ordered the return of the deposit.

On appeal, our sister court reasoned that when Mrs. Russell made the deposit and signed the contract and the Hughes' accepted and signed it, a binding contract resulted. However, the court remanded for a new trial to consider whether the Russells could properly terminate the contract and obtain the return of the deposit based upon the termite and plumbing inspections. The Hughes case differs from the case at hand only by virtue of the fact that in Hughes, the purchasers sought to take advantage of the fact that only one of them had signed the contract; whereas, here the seller seeks to sustain his position because less than all of the purchasers signed the contract.

The most comprehensive discussion of the subject appears in 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 62 (1963):

It has been held in numerous cases that, where an instrument has been executed by only a portion of the parties between whom it purports to be made, it is not binding on those who have executed it. The cases so holding are usually those in which the parties executing the instrument would have a remedy by way of indemnity or contribution against the other parties named, which remedy is lost by the failure of such other parties to execute the instrument.

The question as to whether those who have signed are bound is generally to be determined by the intention and understanding of the parties at the time of the execution of the instrument. The reason for holding the instrument void is that it was intended that all the parties should execute it and that each executes it on the implied condition that it is to be executed by the others, and, therefore, that until executed by all it is inchoate and incomplete and never takes effect as a valid contract, and this is especially true where the agreement expressly provides or its manifest intent is, that it is not to be binding until signed.

Where these reasons do not apply, it is usually held that a party who signs and delivers an instrument is bound by the obligations therein assumed, although it is not executed by all the parties named in it, as, for example, where all the parties recognize the validity of the contract and acquiesce in its performance. Usually, however, a party may, on signing, impose an enforceable condition that the agreement is not to be binding until signed by others.

17 C.J.S. at 734-36 (footnotes omitted).

Superficially, many of the cases cited as authority for the foregoing text reach divergent results. Upon consideration, however, we find that a common thread of reasoning prevails. In the final analysis, the question almost always seems to turn upon whether the signing party manifested the intent not to be bound by the contract unless all of the other parties joined in its execution.

The importance of the intent at the...