Decker v. Strom & Strom Realtors, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decker v. Strom & Strom Realtors, Inc.

695 So. 2d 803, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5151, 1997 WL 245207

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1997

DocketNo. 96-03034

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 695 So. 2d 803 (Decker v. Strom & Strom Realtors, Inc.) 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

Decker v. Strom & Strom Realtors, Inc., 695 So. 2d 803, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5151, 1997 WL 245207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

We reluctantly affirm the trial court’s judgment requiring Mr. and Mrs. Decker to forfeit their $28,900 escrow deposit in a residential real estate transaction. They signed a real estate contract to purchase a $300,000 home from the Sistrunks, but then refused to close when they learned that the mortgage payments would be higher than they had anticipated. We write only to observe that the mortgage contingency clause in the Sarasota Board of Realtors and Sarasota County Bar Association standard real estate contract is the source of this unfortunate result. Unlike the Florida Association of Realtors/Florida Bar Association standard contract, this contract does not specify the interest rate or other terms of the intended financing. See J. Richard Harris, Basic Agreement, Florida Real Property Sales Transactions § 3.53 (2d ed. 1994). The parties used a disclosed dual agent who eventually located financing at an interest rate that was significantly above the current market rate, but reasonable in light of the Deckers’ credit history. The trial court concluded that the Deckers breached this contract when they refused to close. If the parties had used the Florida Bar standard contract, the Deckers could have specified a maximum interest rate and avoided this litigation.

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

We reluctantly affirm the trial court’s judgment requiring Mr. and Mrs. Decker to forfeit their $28,900 escrow deposit in a residential real estate transaction. They signed a real estate contract to purchase a $300,000 home from the Sistrunks, but then refused to close when they learned that the mortgage payments would be higher than they had anticipated. We write only to observe that the mortgage contingency clause in the Sarasota Board of Realtors and Sarasota County Bar Association standard real estate contract is the source of this unfortunate result. Unlike the Florida Association of Realtors/Florida Bar Association standard contract, this contract does not specify the interest rate or other terms of the intended financing. See J. Richard Harris, Basic Agreement, Florida Real Property Sales Transactions § 3.53 (2d ed. 1994). The parties used a disclosed dual agent who eventually located financing at an interest rate that was significantly above the current market rate, but reasonable in light of the Deckers’ credit history. The trial court concluded that the Deckers breached this contract when they refused to close. If the parties had used the Florida Bar standard contract, the Deckers could have specified a maximum interest rate and avoided this litigation.

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 So. 2d 803, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5151, 1997 WL 245207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decker-v-strom-strom-realtors-inc-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack