Gevas v. Fernandez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gevas v. Fernandez

905 So. 2d 149, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15900, 2004 WL 2389562

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 2004

DocketNo. 3D03-1406

StatusPublished

This text of 905 So. 2d 149 (Gevas v. Fernandez) 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

Gevas v. Fernandez, 905 So. 2d 149, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15900, 2004 WL 2389562 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Phil Gevas and Monique Gevas, [“Sellers”] appeal a final judgment of specific performance in favor of Ted Fernandez, [“Buyer”]. We affirm.

The trial court properly ordered the Sellers to convey the property with the custom-built home to the Buyer who contracted for its construction. The Sellers were obviously seeking a way out of the real estate purchase contract because the home had appreciated by roughly $3 million dollars. The record is clear that the protracted litigation and delays were caused by the Sellers — not the Buyer. It is well settled that a seller cannot take advantage of a delay in performance that he or she created. See Forbes v. Babel, 70 So.2d 371 (Fla.1953); Harrison v. Baker, 402 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Smith v. Crissey, 478 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Here, the Sellers’ own conduct prevented the closing from taking place, and therefore, the Buyer was entitled to the relief of specific performance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Phil Gevas and Monique Gevas, [“Sellers”] appeal a final judgment of specific performance in favor of Ted Fernandez, [“Buyer”]. We affirm.

The trial court properly ordered the Sellers to convey the property with the custom-built home to the Buyer who contracted for its construction. The Sellers were obviously seeking a way out of the real estate purchase contract because the home had appreciated by roughly $3 million dollars. The record is clear that the protracted litigation and delays were caused by the Sellers — not the Buyer. It is well settled that a seller cannot take advantage of a delay in performance that he or she created. See Forbes v. Babel, 70 So.2d 371 (Fla.1953); Harrison v. Baker, 402 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Smith v. Crissey, 478 So.2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Here, the Sellers’ own conduct prevented the closing from taking place, and therefore, the Buyer was entitled to the relief of specific performance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

Affirmed.

GERSTEN and SHEVIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

905 So. 2d 149, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 15900, 2004 WL 2389562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gevas-v-fernandez-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack