Futernick v. Trushina

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Futernick v. Trushina

146 So. 3d 63, 2014 WL 3304848, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10505

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 9, 2014

DocketNos. 3D13-2041, 3D13-2022

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 146 So. 3d 63 (Futernick v. Trushina) 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

Futernick v. Trushina, 146 So. 3d 63, 2014 WL 3304848, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10505 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

LOGUE, J.

Frank A. Futernick and Karen Beber appeal from a final judgment in favor of Natalia M. Trushina, which ordered Futer-nick and Beber to specifically perform on their obligations under a contract with Trushina for the sale of their former marital home. Futernick and Beber assert that the trial court erred in enforcing the contract because Futernick had a right of first refusal pursuant to Futernick and Beber’s marital settlement agreement. Because the contract for sale did not incorporate Futernick and Beber’s marital settlement agreement, and because, in any event, Futernick did not comply with the conditions for exercising his right of first refusal, we affirm. See Andersen Windows, Inc. v. Hochberg, 997 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Courts, without dispute, are not authorized to rewrite clear and unambiguous contracts.”). We also affirm, without discussion, the issue raised on cross-appeal.

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

LOGUE, J.

Frank A. Futernick and Karen Beber appeal from a final judgment in favor of Natalia M. Trushina, which ordered Futer-nick and Beber to specifically perform on their obligations under a contract with Trushina for the sale of their former marital home. Futernick and Beber assert that the trial court erred in enforcing the contract because Futernick had a right of first refusal pursuant to Futernick and Beber’s marital settlement agreement. Because the contract for sale did not incorporate Futernick and Beber’s marital settlement agreement, and because, in any event, Futernick did not comply with the conditions for exercising his right of first refusal, we affirm. See Andersen Windows, Inc. v. Hochberg, 997 So.2d 1212, 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Courts, without dispute, are not authorized to rewrite clear and unambiguous contracts.”). We also affirm, without discussion, the issue raised on cross-appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 3d 63, 2014 WL 3304848, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 10505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futernick-v-trushina-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack