5D02-4064 King v. Bray

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2004 » 5D02-4064 King v. Bray

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D02-4064

Case Date: 03/08/2004

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004

BRETT KING AND ANGELA KING, Appellants, v. Case No. 5D02-4064 LARRY BRAY AND DEBORAH BRAY, Appellees. / Opinion filed March 12, 2004 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hernando County, Jack Springstead, Judge. James Barrow of Tampa Bay Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants. David La Croix, Brooksville, for Appellees. SAWAYA, C. J. Brett and Angela King appeal the final judgment rendered in favor of Larry and Deborah Bray in the action for specific performance filed by the Kings to enforce their contract to purchase the Brays' home. The issue we must resolve in these proceedings is whether the trial court erred in finding that the contract was unenforceable because it was ambiguous and because there was never a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding an essential term of the agreement. Negotiations between the parties resulted in a contract whereby the Kings agreed to purchase the Brays' residence and assume the existing mortgage. Appended to the contract

was an addendum that contained the following provision:

When Mortgage is assumed and Loan is Liquidated, sellers: Larry & Deborah Bray are to be released from Liability and VA certificate is to be returned to Larry Bray. This provision formed the genesis of the lawsuit because, according to the Kings, nothing in the contract required them to return the VA certificate at closing as the Brays apparently expected. The Kings understood that the certificate would be returned after the loan was paid in full. Unfortunately, the addendum was not attached to the copy of the contract sent to the mortgage company and when the Brays learned that the mortgage company would not return the certificate until the loan was satisfied, they refused to close. The Brays testified at the trial that the addendum meant that when the loan was assumed, they would get the certificate back at closing. The transactional broker who prepared the addendum testified that she understood that the certificate was to be returned at closing and that this is what the Brays made clear to her when the contract was signed. The trial court found that return of the certificate was a major consideration for the Brays when they executed the contract so that it could be utilized by them to purchase another home. The trial court also found that the addendum was prepared with the Brays' understanding that the certificate would be returned at closing and because there was no meeting of the minds and no mutual understanding of the contents of the contract, a valid and enforceable contract never came into existence. Accordingly, judgment was entered denying the Kings specific performance of the contract and requiring that the deposit be returned to the Kings with no deductions for fees or costs. 2

The Kings argue that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to explain the addendum that they contend was clear and unambiguous. The parol-evidence rule is a substantive rule of law1 and reduced to its essence, provides that a written document intended by the parties to be the final embodiment of their agreement may not be contradicted, modified or varied by parol evidence. See The Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2000); Jackson v. Parker, 15 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1943); Ali R. Ghahramani, M.D., P.A. v. Pablo A. Guzman, M.D., P.A., 768 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Because the law generally presumes that the parties, by making a writing on the subject, intended the writing to be the sole expositor of their agreement, the party seeking to introduce parol evidence must establish that the document is ambiguous and in need of interpretation. See Frederick; Laboratory Corp. of Am. v. McKown, 829 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); NCP Lake Power, Inc. v. Florida Power Corp., 781 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The problem with the Kings' argument is that they did not object to the introduction of the parol evidence that allowed the trial court to look beyond the four corners of the contract. Although the theoretical underpinnings of the parol-evidence rule might logically suggest otherwise, especially in light of the fact that the rule is considered a fundamental rule of substantive law, the Florida courts generally agree that failure to object to the introduction of parol evidence in the trial proceedings waives the right to invoke the rule on appeal. See

The parol-evidence rule is generally considered a "fundamental rule of substantive law." The Florida Bar v. Frederick, 756 So. 2d 79, 85 n.2 (Fla. 2000) (citing Schwartz v. Zaconick, 68 So. 2d 173, 175 (Fla. 1953); Knabb v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp., 197 So. 707, 715 (Fla. 1940)). 3

1

Pathway Fin. v. Miami Intern. Realty Co., 588 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); King v. Estate of King, 554 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 564 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1990); Thal v. Roth, 173 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Ross v. Florida Sun Life Ins. Co., 124 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1960); Frank v. Pioneer Metals, Inc., 121 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 123 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1960). Hence, we proceed to determine whether the trial court arrived at the correct conclusion based on the evidence and testimony submitted by the parties. Specific performance may be denied when a contract is unenforceable because, based on an ambiguity in the contract, the parties never reached a meeting of the minds regarding an essential term of the agreement. See Cavallaro v. Stratford Homes, Inc., 784 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Allen v. Berry, 765 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), review denied, 786 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2001). Regarding the issue whether the contract is

ambiguous, the underlying rationale of the argument presented by the Kings is that 38 U.S.C.

Download 5D02-4064 King v. Bray.pdf