Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor

449 So. 2d 292, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 6, 1984·No. Nos. 83-619, 83-1714·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

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 We conclude that based on these facts the contracts herein were properly rescinded as a matter of law for failure of the defendant/seller to comply substantially with certain provisions of the Florida Condominium Act, §§ 718.202, 718.-503,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]*293439 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.

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

Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So. 2d 292, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 12110 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

449 So. 2d 292 (Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Enfield v. FWL, INC.
607 A.2d 685 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1991)
Hamptons Dev. Corp. of Dade v. Sackler
522 So. 2d 1035 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Grove Towers, Inc. v. Lopez
467 So. 2d 358 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)