You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Icard v. Henderson

Citations: 455 So. 2d 417; 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14064Docket: No. 83-1580

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 13, 1984; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case revolves around a dispute involving a condominium sale agreement that was not completed. The seller initiated legal action against the buyer to recover costs incurred from modifications requested by the buyer, which were not recouped in a later sale to a third party. The trial court ruled in favor of the seller, prompting the buyer to appeal, arguing that the contractual agreement specified that payment for changes was dependent on the sale closing, which did not occur. The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, citing sufficient evidence to support the unique terms of the contract. On a cross-appeal, the seller contested the trial court's denial of prejudgment interest on the owed amount. The appellate court concurred with the seller, determining that prejudgment interest should be calculated from the intended closing date, supported by documentation from the seller to the buyer. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in part, reversed it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings aligned with its opinion.

Legal Issues Addressed

Contingency of Payment upon Closing

Application: The buyer contended that payment for changes was contingent upon closing, which did not occur, but the court found otherwise based on the contractual terms.

Reasoning: On appeal, the buyer argued that the agreement stipulated that payment for changes was contingent upon closing, which did not occur.

Contractual Obligations and Non-Finalization of Sale

Application: The court examined the contractual obligations when a condominium sale agreement was not finalized, focusing on the buyer's liability for costs incurred at their request.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding sufficient evidence to support the decision regarding the unique contractual terms.

Prejudgment Interest on Contractual Amounts

Application: The appellate court addressed the seller's cross-appeal concerning prejudgment interest, ruling that interest should accrue from the date designated as the closing date.

Reasoning: The appellate court agreed, stating that prejudgment interest should be calculated from the date of the agreed closing, August 1, 1982, as indicated in a letter from the seller to the buyer that itemized the charges.