Laudecio v. K-Site 500 Associates

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Laudecio v. K-Site 500 Associates

619 So. 2d 333, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5227, 1993 WL 152514

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2424

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 619 So. 2d 333 (Laudecio v. K-Site 500 Associates) 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

Laudecio v. K-Site 500 Associates, 619 So. 2d 333, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5227, 1993 WL 152514 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff buyers Louis and Lucille Laudecio from an adverse summary judgment entered in an action to recover a deposit on the purchase of a condominium unit. Without burdening this opinion with the detailed negotiations involving mortgage financing conducted after the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase the subject condominium unit, suffice it to say that the plaintiffs eventually declined to close on the sale of the unit after obtaining a binding mortgage commitment and the defendant seller K-Site 500 Associates retained the deposit paid by the plaintiffs. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, we conclude that (1) the plaintiffs obtained a binding mortgage commitment from an institutional lender, as defined in the sale agreement, to finance the instant purchase, but unreasonably declined to fulfill a reasonable condition to that commitment, namely, to place certain cash in escrow at closing for several months of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance, and (2) the refusal of the plaintiffs to close on the purchase of the condominium unit, although they had a binding mortgage commitment, violated the terms of the sale agreement. This being so, the plaintiffs’ default under the contract authorized the subject forfeiture of deposit. Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1988); Ruiz v. Huddle, 420 So.2d 327, 328 (Fla. 4th DCA1982); Bee Kay Realty Corp. v. Cayre, 256 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 263 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1972); Herrera y Nogueira v. Helker, 139 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA1962).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff buyers Louis and Lucille Laudecio from an adverse summary judgment entered in an action to recover a deposit on the purchase of a condominium unit. Without burdening this opinion with the detailed negotiations involving mortgage financing conducted after the plaintiffs entered into an agreement to purchase the subject condominium unit, suffice it to say that the plaintiffs eventually declined to close on the sale of the unit after obtaining a binding mortgage commitment and the defendant seller K-Site 500 Associates retained the deposit paid by the plaintiffs. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ argument, we conclude that (1) the plaintiffs obtained a binding mortgage commitment from an institutional lender, as defined in the sale agreement, to finance the instant purchase, but unreasonably declined to fulfill a reasonable condition to that commitment, namely, to place certain cash in escrow at closing for several months of principal, interest, taxes, and insurance, and (2) the refusal of the plaintiffs to close on the purchase of the condominium unit, although they had a binding mortgage commitment, violated the terms of the sale agreement. This being so, the plaintiffs’ default under the contract authorized the subject forfeiture of deposit. Johnson v. Wortzel, 517 So.2d 42, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1988); Ruiz v. Huddle, 420 So.2d 327, 328 (Fla. 4th DCA1982); Bee Kay Realty Corp. v. Cayre, 256 So.2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 263 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1972); Herrera y Nogueira v. Helker, 139 So.2d 895 (Fla. 3d DCA1962).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

619 So. 2d 333, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5227, 1993 WL 152514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laudecio-v-k-site-500-associates-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack