100 North East 3rd Ave, Suite 620
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Phone: (954) 779-7009
Schecter Law

Posts Tagged ‘enforceability’

Are your contracts enforceable under Florida law?

October 13th, 2011

By Mark Schecter | Comments Off

Your business contracts will end in one or two ways. Either everyone will perform as agreed or someone will drop the ball causing you (or others) to incur losses.

Knowing this, it is imperative that you rely only on written agreements that can be enforced by the court if a dispute or lawsuit arises.

This fact was clearly evident in a case involving a dispute over a land contract a while ago…

How it started

A married couple was looking to buy real estate when they ran across land in central Florida. The property was under the control of 6 beneficiaries; 1 of which was the designated trustee.

The parties began to negotiate, exchanging multiple offers and counter-offers. After a bit of back and forth, an agreement between the trustee and buyers was reached.

While there were discussions about how the property could be used, specific deed restrictions were not included in the final contract. The following statement was added instead:

“Subject to buyer and seller agreeing on deed restrictions provided that none of the foregoing shall prevent use of the property for the purpose of building single family house.”

When agreements fall apart

After the beneficiaries realized the price the trustee agreed to was much lower than the appraised value of the property, they expressed concern and followed up with a list of proposed deed restrictions.

The buyers refused to agree to the restrictions without modifications – and the sellers refused to make any changes. The sellers asked the buyers to walk away from the land contract. In response, the buyers filed a lawsuit.

Two sides of the story

The buyers asked the court to enforce or reform the contract with or without the deed restrictions to prevent an injustice from taking place.

The sellers contended that because the contract did not include a list of specific restrictions it lacked essential elements that would make it enforceable under Florida law.

The court’s decision

The District Court of Florida agreed with the sellers and concluded that:

“A court has no right to write a contract for parties where none exists… [T]he deed restrictions were a material part of the proposed agreement. Until they were agreed upon no contract existed and the court could not supply them for the parties.”

This decision forced the buyers to either accept the sellers’ deed restrictions without modifications or walk away from the agreement to purchase. They chose the latter.

While this case involved a lawsuit over real estate, the court’s decision can apply to most any litigation matter where the contract in question is unenforceable – and thus, not worth the paper it’s printed on.

Don’t let this happen to you!

Download our free guide, Business Contracts Basics: What Every Florida Business Owner Must Know about Contracts, to take the first step towards making sure your business contracts are strong enough to withstand the court’s scrutiny.

Is your Commercial Lease Valid and Enforceable?

September 11th, 2009

By Mark Schecter | No Comments »

office-space-leaseOver the past couple of months, we’ve spent a considerable amount of time discussing Florida’s laws as they relate to written and verbal contracts, enforceability, and breach of contract issues.

Our topics have included essential components of every Florida contract,  what happens if a breach occurs, as well as common defenses to breach of contract claims.

While it is important to know Florida’s contract laws, understanding how those same laws are implemented and applied to every day issues is just as important, if not more.

Today, we pose the question: Is your commercial lease legally binding and enforceable in Florida if witness signatures are absent? This question was recently addressed by the Court of Appeals of Florida in Skylake Insurance Agency, Inc. vs. NMB Plaza, LLC.

The Skylake matter arose from a landlord/tenant dispute involving a Florida commercial developer, NMB Plaza, LLC.  Skylake Insurance Agency entered into a ten year commercial lease agreement with NMB Plaza. At the time the lease was executed, NMB Plaza was in the process of constructing an office building in the Miami Beach area. According to the lease agreement, Skylake was to begin occupying the office space within 90 days of completion of the office building.

The commercial lease agreement was signed by three parties; a representative of NMB, and the president and vice president of Skylake. There were no witnesses present to sign the lease at the time of execution.

At some point prior to completion of the office building, the landlord decided to challenge the ten year lease agreement. In response, the tenant filed an action before the Florida court requesting that the landlord honor the lease or in the alternative, compensates the tenant for its alleged fraudulent actions.

The landlord relied on Florida statute § 689.01 to support its claim that the ten year lease was invalid and unenforceable because it lacked the signatures of two witnesses.

§ 689.01, Fla. Stat. does read in pertinent part:

“No estate or interest of freehold, or for a term of more than 1 year…shall be created, made, granted, transferred or released in any other manner than by instrument in writing, signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses by the party…”

As with some statutes, there are exceptions to the rules. The tenant pointed to the last sentence of § 689.01, which reads: “Corporations may convey in accordance with the provisions of this section…” as an exception to the rule.” The tenant also asserted that because the lease was signed by a representative for NMB, it satisfied the statute of frauds as per § 725.01, Fla. Stat. (2003).

The Court’s findings:

With regards to the tenant’s assertions, the court found that since the landlord, NMB Plaza, was in fact a limited liability corporation (LLC) and not a corporation the last sentence of § 689.01 did not apply to it. However, after completing an independent review of the Florida laws, the court cited another statute that did allow for an exception – § 608.425(3), Fla. Stat. (2003), which governs the disposition of property of a LLC.

§ 608.425(3), Fla. Stat. (2003) reads in pertinent part:

“Instruments and documents providing for the acquisition, mortgage, or disposition of property of the limited liability company shall be valid and binding upon the limited liability company, if they are executed in accordance with this chapter.” § 608.425(3), Fla. Stat. (2003).

The court concluded that a commercial lease “qualifies as a ‘disposition’ of property of the limited liability company,” and that there was no question that the lease was executed by an authorized representative of NMB Plaza. Thus, the signatures of two witnesses, as required by § 689.01, was not necessary to validate the ten year commercial lease.

Enforceability and Purpose of a Time is of the Essence Clause

March 13th, 2009

By Mark Schecter | No Comments »

stopwatchA “time is of the essence” clause embodied in a written agreement requires the parties to that agreement to perform their obligations thereunder within a specified or reasonable time; and if a party’s obligation is not performed with said time, said party has defaulted providing the other party the right to cancel the agreement. See, e.g., Sun Bank of Miami v. Lester, 404 So.2d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding that since the buyer failed to make a deposit within the time specified in the purchase contract, it was lawful for the seller to default the buyer under the contract, and refuse the buyer’s attempt to cure his default).

When a contract contains a “time is of the essence” clause, such clause is enforceable in both law and in equity. Realty Securities Corporation v. Johnson, 111 So. 532, 534 (Fla. 1927); Blausten v. Weiss, 409 So.2d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

With respect to a purchase contract for the sale of real property, it has been found that a “time is of the essence” clause is designed to provide sellers an immediate right to terminate the contract if a purchaser is unable to timely demonstrate his or her ability to purchase the real property. See Garcia v. Alfonso, 490 So.2d 130, 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). If a contract does not contain a time is of the essence clause then the time limitations in the contract probably will not be construed literally. This can lead to unnecessary and costly litigation.