Krez v. Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Krez v. Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A.

608 So. 2d 892, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11343, 1992 WL 322980

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 4, 1992

DocketNo. 91-3413

StatusPublished

This text of 608 So. 2d 892 (Krez v. Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A.) 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

Krez v. Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A., 608 So. 2d 892, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11343, 1992 WL 322980 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, since under the relevant case law it appears that summary judgment was properly entered herein.

In Iglehart v. Phillips, 383 So.2d 610 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court held that a purchase option, consisting of a right of first refusal for an unlimited period and for a fixed purchase price, was invalid and unenforceable, as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. Because the record indicates without dispute that the right of first refusal in the case at bar contained no duration period, and made no adjustment for either inflation or market value, the right is invalid under Iglehart. This conclusion is supported by the holdings in Colen v. Patterson, 436 So.2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 831 (Fla.1983), and Brine v. Fertitta, 537 So.2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), both of which applied the legal principle set out in Igle-hart to similar factual situations.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., and HOY, JOHN J., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, since under the relevant case law it appears that summary judgment was properly entered herein.

In Iglehart v. Phillips, 383 So.2d 610 (Fla.1980), the Florida Supreme Court held that a purchase option, consisting of a right of first refusal for an unlimited period and for a fixed purchase price, was invalid and unenforceable, as an unreasonable restraint on alienation. Because the record indicates without dispute that the right of first refusal in the case at bar contained no duration period, and made no adjustment for either inflation or market value, the right is invalid under Iglehart. This conclusion is supported by the holdings in Colen v. Patterson, 436 So.2d 182 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 438 So.2d 831 (Fla.1983), and Brine v. Fertitta, 537 So.2d 113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), both of which applied the legal principle set out in Igle-hart to similar factual situations.

GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and ANSTEAD, J., and HOY, JOHN J., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

608 So. 2d 892, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 11343, 1992 WL 322980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krez-v-sun-banksouth-florida-na-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack