Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

449 So. 2d 292

Finst Dev., Inc. v. Bemaor

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1984-03-06

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1991

3 state decisions

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1701 (Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914)

Relies on 345 So. 2d 371 - Pfohl v. Pfohl · 439 So. 2d 1032 - Dorchester Development, Inc. v. Burk

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-03-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1This is an appeal from a final summary judgment rescinding certain contracts for the sale of condominium units, returning the deposits thereon to the plaintiff/buyers, and awarding attorney’s fees for the plaintiff/buyers. The material facts of this case, although complex, are undisputed on this record. We conclude that based on these facts the contracts herein were properly rescinded as a matter of law for failure of the defendant/seller to comply substantially with certain provisions of the Florida Condominium Act, §§ 718.202, 718.-503, 718.504, Fla.Stat. (1981), and the Federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. (1982); see Dorchester Development, Inc. v. Burk, *293439 So.2d 1032 (Fla.3d DCA 1983). We also agree that as a matter of law the counterclaim herein has no merit based on this record. Finally, we conclude that the attorney’s fees awarded below were reasonable and authorized by Section 718.-506(2), Florida Statutes (1981). See Pfohl v. Pfohl, 345 So.2d 371, 379 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). We accordingly affirm in all respects the final summary judgment under review.

¶2Affirmed.

/449/so2d/292 · .json · Public domain