TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor

FINST DEV., INC. v. Isaac BEMAOR, Sergio Goldemberg, David Saul, Vulf Mintz, Luba Mintz and Zelman Mintz

Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So. 2d 292 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 6, 1984
Docket
Nos. 83-619, 83-1714
Judges
Barkdull, Hubbart, Jorgenson
Citations
449 So. 2d 2921984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a final summary judgment rescinding certain contracts for the sale of condominium units, returning the deposits thereon to the plaintiff/buyers, and awarding attorney’s fees for the plaintiff/buyers. The material facts of this case, although complex, are undisputed on this record. We conclude that based on these facts the contracts herein were properly rescinded as a matter of law for failure of the defendant/seller to comply substantially with certain provisions of the Florida Condominium Act, §§ 718.202, 718.-503, 718.504, Fla.Stat. (1981), and the Federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (1982); see Dorchester Development, Inc. v. Burk, *293 439 So.2d 1032 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). We also agree that as a matter of law the counterclaim herein has no merit based on this record. Finally, we conclude that the attorney’s fees awarded below were reasonable and authorized by Section 718.-506(2), Florida Statutes (1981). See Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371, 379 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). We accordingly affirm in all respects the final summary judgment under review.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1985: 11988: 11991: 119852026peak 1985 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Grove Towers, Inc. v. Lopez467 So. 2d 358 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
  2. Enfield v. FWL, INC.607 A.2d 685 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991)
  3. Hamptons Dev. Corp. of Dade v. Sackler522 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Enfield v. FWL, INC.607 A.2d 685 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991)
  2. Hamptons Dev. Corp. of Dade v. Sackler522 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
  3. Grove Towers, Inc. v. Lopez467 So. 2d 358 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So. 2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977) 37
Dorchester Dev., Inc. v. Burk, 439 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list