Avirom v. Paramount Land Development Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Avirom v. Paramount Land Development Corp.

277 So. 2d 851, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6831

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 22, 1973

DocketNo. 72-1136

StatusPublished

This text of 277 So. 2d 851 (Avirom v. Paramount Land Development Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avirom v. Paramount Land Development Corp., 277 So. 2d 851, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6831 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the defendant m the trial court, appeals a summary final judgment forfeiting his deposit upon a contract to purchase a parcel of real property from the appellee. The sole question presented is whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the availability of the real property for a use which was made a condition of the contract. The condition was expressed as follows: “Subject to . . . assurance that a two story apartment building can be constructed on this land with foundation normal to this area.”

The judgment was based upon affidavits submitted by the appellee. They do not conclusively demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to [852]*852whether the quoted condition was in fact met. The affidavit of the Director of Building and Zoning of the City of Homestead, relied upon by appellee, is an expression of opinion and is not sufficient to demonstrate conclusively the absence of an issue on the subject. See Goodman v. Anthony, Fla.App.1972, 269 So.2d 756. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, who was the defendant m the trial court, appeals a summary final judgment forfeiting his deposit upon a contract to purchase a parcel of real property from the appellee. The sole question presented is whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the availability of the real property for a use which was made a condition of the contract. The condition was expressed as follows: “Subject to . . . assurance that a two story apartment building can be constructed on this land with foundation normal to this area.”

The judgment was based upon affidavits submitted by the appellee. They do not conclusively demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to [852]*852whether the quoted condition was in fact met. The affidavit of the Director of Building and Zoning of the City of Homestead, relied upon by appellee, is an expression of opinion and is not sufficient to demonstrate conclusively the absence of an issue on the subject. See Goodman v. Anthony, Fla.App.1972, 269 So.2d 756. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 So. 2d 851, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avirom-v-paramount-land-development-corp-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack