Rank v. Sullivan

132 So. 2d 32
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 28, 1961
Docket1821
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 132 So. 2d 32 (Rank v. Sullivan) 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
Rank v. Sullivan, 132 So. 2d 32 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

132 So.2d 32 (1961)

Frederick T. RANK and J. Graydon Rank, Appellants,
v.
Bart E. SULLIVAN, Executor for the Estate of Gertrude P. Rank, Robert F. Sullivan, Mrs. Robert Faulkner and Mrs. Maybelle Pulling, Appellees.

No. 1821.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 28, 1961.

Zokvic, Dougherty & Carrier, Miami, for appellants.

Buckley & Bland, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellees.

KANNER, Judge.

Frederick T. Rank and J. Graydon Rank, beneficiaries under the will of Gertrude P. *33 Rank, brought suit under the declaratory proceeding statute. Bart E. Sullivan as executor of the estate of deceased and Robert F. Sullivan, who had been associated with her in certain business ventures, together with Mrs. Robert Faulkner and Mrs. Maybelle Pulling, also beneficiaries under the will, were named as defendants. The object of the suit was to procure a declaration of rights of the parties under the will, under a stock purchase agreement, and under articles of partnership.

For that purpose interpretation was sought as to the will wherein the testatrix called her executor's attention to an agreement with Robert F. Sullivan, giving him an option to purchase her interest in four corporations, Sullivan Construction Co., Inc., Cove Realty of North Broward County, Inc., North Broward Land Co., Inc., and Tamarind Land Co., Inc., and to purchase her interest in a partnership in Tidewater Development Company upon her death.[1] Interpretation was also sought with reference to a stock purchase agreement between deceased and Robert F. Sullivan giving him an option to purchase stock of the decedent in Cove Realty of Broward County, Inc., and North Broward Land Co., Inc.,[2] and a provision of the articles of partnership of Tidewater Development Company giving Robert F. Sullivan an option to purchase decedent's interest in the partnership.[3]

*34 The petition prayed for an adjudication of the questions, (1) whether Robert F. Sullivan had timely exercised his options, (2) whether, in the event the court ruled that the options had not been timely exercised, the executor could bind the estate by acceptance of payments under the expired options, and (3) what interest, if any, the estate of Gertrude P. Rank had in the two corporations, Tamarind Land Co., Inc., and Sullivan Construction Co., Inc.

Gertrude P. Rank died February 9, 1956. Her will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary were issued to the executor February 21, 1956. Robert F. Sullivan gave written notices of intention to exercise the written options on March 5, 1956, and paid the first installment on the options on July 18, 1957. He also paid to the executor a certain amount as decedent's share of profit from the operation of Sullivan Construction Co., Inc., to the date of her death. The executor accepted these payments on behalf of the estate.

The chancellor found that Robert F. Sullivan had properly exercised his written options and that time was not of the essence in the payment of installments due. He found that the giving of written notice of acceptance resulted in the formation of a bi-lateral contract and held that, whether or not time was of the essence, the executor, acting within his power, having accepted the first installment, so bound the estate. It was further found from the written statement in the will and from other evidence that Robert F. Sullivan had an enforceable oral option with Gertrude P. Rank as to the Tamarind Land Co., Inc., which he held had been properly exercised by the giving of oral notice. Again, the court held that the result was the formation of a bi-lateral contract; that time was not of the essence in payment of installments due; and, whether or not time was of the essence, the executor, acting within his power, having accepted the first installment, so bound the estate. Next, the chancellor found that the deceased had no interest in Sullivan Construction Co., Inc., but that she had been entitled under an oral agreement to receive during her lifetime one half of the net profits from sales of the fourth section of the Cove made before her death; and he also found that Robert F. Sullivan had paid the executor a certain amount in satisfaction of this obligation.

Points brought before this court on the appeal assert (1) that Robert F. Sullivan did not make timely and effectual exercise of his written options to purchase decedent's interest in Cove Realty of Broward County, Inc., North Broward Land Co., Inc., and Tidewater Development Company, and that decedent's estate was not bound by those options; (2) that he did not have or make timely and effectual exercise of an oral option to purchase decedent's interest in Tamarind Land Co., Inc., and that decedent's estate was not bound thereby; (3) that the estate of Gertrude P. Rank was entitled to an equal share of the net profits from sales of the fourth section of the Cove made by Sullivan Construction Co., Inc., after her death.

Under the first point, the appellants, not disputing that Robert F. Sullivan delivered written notices of intention to exercise his written options by the time specified, assert that he was required to make the first of the fifteen annual installments by March 5, 1957; and that, since he did not do so until *35 July 18, 1957, this was too late to effectuate his exercise of options under the stock purchase agreement and the articles of copartnership.

It is rudimentary that a contract will be construed according to its own clear, plain, and unambiguous terms. 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, section 74, page 137. From a perusal of the stock purchase agreement, it is immediately discernible that the condition precedent to the exercise by Robert F. Sullivan of his option was thus expressed:

"* * * it shall be encumbered upon him to notify in writing the representative of the estate of Rank of his intention to purchase the stock of Rank in both corporations within thirty days after the appointment of the representative of said estate of Rank. * * *"

Then it is provided that in the event Sullivan "exercises his option to purchase as aforesaid, he shall have the privilege of paying for the same in annual installments over a period of fifteen years without interest." (Emphasis supplied.) Similarly, in the articles of co-partnership, it is seen that "If the surviving partner elects to purchase the decedent's interest, he shall serve notice in writing of such election, within three months after the death of the decedent * * *". Under subsection (a) of that provision, the details of what shall constitute the purchase price are given, together with the stipulation that such purchase price shall be paid without interest in fifteen annual installments, the first installment to be due and payable one year after the end of the calendar month in which the decedent's death occurred. In neither agreement is it specified that the initial payment of one-fifteenth of the purchase price or any of the installment payments is a condition which Robert F. Sullivan was required to fulfill before he effectually could exercise his option.

If, by the express terms of the option instrument, payment of the purchase price or a part of it is required to accompany the optionee's election to exercise the option, then the making of the payment specified or the tender of it is necessary as a condition precedent to formation of the contract, unless waived by the optionor.

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

Related

Kolski Ex Rel. Kolski v. Kolski
731 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Dad's Properties, Inc. v. Lucas
545 So. 2d 926 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Flagship Nat. Bank of Miami v. King
418 So. 2d 275 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Boothe Financial Corp. v. Loretto Block, Inc.
641 P.2d 527 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1982)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1980
Bader Brothers Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Campbell
299 So. 2d 114 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1974)
In re Estate of Gamble
183 So. 2d 849 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1966)
Bradford v. Crown-Bremson Industries, Inc.
255 F. Supp. 1009 (M.D. Tennessee, 1964)
Busser v. Sabatasso
143 So. 2d 532 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Sullivan v. Rank
132 So. 2d 37 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 So. 2d 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rank-v-sullivan-fladistctapp-1961.