Holston v. Bernal

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holston v. Bernal

407 So. 2d 332, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22002

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 15, 1981

DocketNos. 81-314, 81-836

StatusPublished

This text of 407 So. 2d 332 (Holston v. Bernal) 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

Holston v. Bernal, 407 So. 2d 332, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22002 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment ordering specific performance of a contract which provided for the sale to appellees of property owned by appellants. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that appellees had complied with their contractual obligations by delivering the required additional deposit. Appellees were prevented by appellants from performing their remaining obligation, and appellants may not now be heard to complain. Waters v. Key Colony East, Inc., 345 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 348 So.2d 949 (Fla.1977); see generally Paul v. Hurley, 315 So.2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

With regard to the consolidated appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees which were within the range suggested in affidavits of members of the Bar.

Affirmed.

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

BASKIN, Judge.

We affirm the final judgment ordering specific performance of a contract which provided for the sale to appellees of property owned by appellants. We find no error in the trial court’s ruling that appellees had complied with their contractual obligations by delivering the required additional deposit. Appellees were prevented by appellants from performing their remaining obligation, and appellants may not now be heard to complain. Waters v. Key Colony East, Inc., 345 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 348 So.2d 949 (Fla.1977); see generally Paul v. Hurley, 315 So.2d 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

With regard to the consolidated appeal, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees which were within the range suggested in affidavits of members of the Bar.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 So. 2d 332, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 22002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holston-v-bernal-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack