777 Flagler Co. v. Amerifirst Bank

777 Flagler Co. v. Amerifirst Bank, 559 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided: March 14, 1990
Docket: No. 88-3155
Judges: Polen
Citations: 559 So. 2d 12101990 WL 26211

Cited by 3

Opinion

559 So.2d 1210 (1990)

777 FLAGLER CO., Appellant/Cross Appellee,

AMERIFIRST BANK, f/k/a Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association, a Federal Savings Bank, Appellee/Cross Appellant.

No. 88-3155.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1990. Rehearing and Rehearing Denied May 23, 1990.

Robert T. Scott, Peter J. Aldrich, and David R. Atkinson of Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant/cross appellee.

Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl, P.A., Miami, Randy Ellison of Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A., and Larry Klein of Klein & Walsh, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 23, 1990.

POLEN, Judge.

We have carefully reviewed the trial court's extensive order and findings of fact *1211 in addition to the parties' motions, memoranda of law, briefs and oral arguments. We conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact which would preclude the trial court's entry of summary judgment. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985); Stewart v. Boho, Inc., 493 So.2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

We find the language of paragraph 16.27 to be clear and unambigious. The language clearly stated that the contract is not complete in material respects and would become complete, valid and enforceable only if the parties, prior to a specified deadline, are able to reach agreement as to form and substance of the exhibits. The undisputed failure of the parties to agree on the exhibits precludes the existence of any legally enforceable contract. Even when all other provisions of the document are taken in pari materia with paragraph 16.27, we reach the same conclusion. Thus, the trial court did not err in its interpretation and conclusion that a contract had not been formed. Zepfler v. Neandross, 497 So.2d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order granting summary judgment and all points raised on appeal.

STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Randall S. Bragg v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc.374 F.3d 1060 (11th Cir. 2004)
De Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church953 So. 2d 677 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
Drost v. Hill639 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Most recent

De Vaux v. Westwood Baptist Church953 So. 2d 677 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)
Randall S. Bragg v. Bill Heard Chevrolet, Inc.374 F.3d 1060 (11th Cir. 2004)
Drost v. Hill639 So. 2d 105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)	445
	Stewart v. Boho, Inc., 493 So. 2d 95 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)	19
	Zepfler v. Neandross, 497 So. 2d 901 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)	6
	Love v. State, 559 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list