Lindros v. Backus

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lindros v. Backus

848 So. 2d 413, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9458, 2003 WL 21466963

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-822

StatusPublished

This text of 848 So. 2d 413 (Lindros v. Backus) 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

Lindros v. Backus, 848 So. 2d 413, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9458, 2003 WL 21466963 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gary C. Lindros brought an action for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of an oceanfront condominium. At the conclusion of Appellant’s case in chief, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion for dismissal on the basis that “the plaintiffs proofs failed to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Florida Statutes, in that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants signed the documents alleged to constitute such a contract, or the plaintiff failed to show that defendants’ names were signed thereto by a person authorized to sign their names for them.” We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred as a matter of law, and therefore reverse.

We hold that the aggregated documents in the record, including an extension agreement signed by Appellant and Appel-lee Marjorie Backus after a power of attorney was executed authorizing her to sell the condominium, satisfy the requirements of section 725.01, Florida Statutes. See Heffernan v. Keith, 127 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)(holding that a telegram, together with other documents, constituted a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds for the sale of land).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Gary C. Lindros brought an action for specific performance of a contract for the purchase of an oceanfront condominium. At the conclusion of Appellant’s case in chief, the trial court granted Appellees’ motion for dismissal on the basis that “the plaintiffs proofs failed to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, § 725.01, Florida Statutes, in that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendants signed the documents alleged to constitute such a contract, or the plaintiff failed to show that defendants’ names were signed thereto by a person authorized to sign their names for them.” We agree with Appellant that the trial court erred as a matter of law, and therefore reverse.

We hold that the aggregated documents in the record, including an extension agreement signed by Appellant and Appel-lee Marjorie Backus after a power of attorney was executed authorizing her to sell the condominium, satisfy the requirements of section 725.01, Florida Statutes. See Heffernan v. Keith, 127 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)(holding that a telegram, together with other documents, constituted a sufficient memorandum to satisfy the statute of frauds for the sale of land).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

WEBSTER, PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 So. 2d 413, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 9458, 2003 WL 21466963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindros-v-backus-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack