DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC
112 So. 3d 85, 2013 WL 1235000, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The judicial doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be used to circumvent the Florida Statute of Frauds. Therefore, an oral modification to a contract for the sale of land is unenforceable, even if one party detrimentally relied on the oral promise.
Facts:
- On July 20, 2004, DK Arena, Inc. ('DK Arena'), owned by Don King, entered into a written contract to sell the Mangonia Park Jai Alai Fronton property to EB Acquisitions I, LLC ('EB') for $23 million.
- The contract included a 60-day due diligence period during which EB could cancel the deal and recover its $1 million deposit, and a clause requiring all modifications to be in writing.
- The contract also required Don King to personally participate in seeking local government approval for EB's proposed development project.
- On September 13, 2004, the parties executed a written amendment extending the due diligence period to October 4, 2004.
- On October 4, 2004, the day the extended due diligence period was set to expire, Don King orally agreed to hold the due diligence period in indefinite 'abeyance' while the parties negotiated a potential joint venture.
- In reliance on King's oral assurance, EB did not provide written notice of cancellation before the October 4 deadline passed.
- Don King later failed to attend a crucial town council meeting on October 26, 2004, believing EB had already breached the contract by not releasing the deposit after the original written deadline.
- On October 25, 2004, DK Arena demanded the escrow agent release the deposit, claiming the due diligence period had expired. EB refused and demanded the deposit's return, citing King's breach of his cooperation duties.
Procedural Posture:
- DK Arena, Inc. filed a lawsuit for breach of contract against EB Acquisitions I, LLC in the circuit court in Palm Beach County (trial court), seeking the $1 million escrow deposit.
- EB Acquisitions filed counterclaims against DK Arena for, among other things, breach of contract.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of EB Acquisitions, ruling that the oral extension of the due diligence period was valid and that DK Arena had breached the contract.
- DK Arena, Inc., as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling regarding the return of the deposit, holding that the 'doctrine of estoppel' prevented DK Arena from invalidating the oral extension of the due diligence period.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review of the Fourth District's decision based on an express and direct conflict with its prior decision in Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of promissory estoppel create an exception to the Florida Statute of Frauds, thereby making an oral modification to a written real estate contract enforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Quince, J.
No. The doctrine of promissory estoppel does not create an exception to the Florida Statute of Frauds for an oral modification to a written real estate contract. The court reaffirms its long-standing precedent from Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., which explicitly held that promissory estoppel cannot serve as a judicial counteraction to the legislatively created Statute of Frauds. The Fourth District's holding, though using the general term 'estoppel,' was fundamentally an application of promissory estoppel because it was based on DK Arena's promise and EB's detrimental reliance. Allowing such an exception would undermine the statute's purpose of preventing fraud by requiring written evidence for significant contracts, such as those involving land. The parties could have, and previously did, secure their rights by putting the modification in writing.
Dissenting - Canady, J.
Yes. The doctrine of estoppel or waiver should prevent a party from relying on the Statute of Frauds to invalidate an oral agreement to hold a contract requirement in abeyance. The majority incorrectly conflates this case with Tanenbaum, which involved the creation of an entirely new oral contract, not the oral waiver of a condition within an existing written contract. Established contract principles, as explained in Williston on Contracts, allow an unenforceable oral modification to operate as a waiver, especially where there has been a material change of position in reliance on that modification. It would be unjust to permit DK Arena to induce EB's reliance and then use the Statute of Frauds to enforce the original deadline.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Florida's strict interpretation of the Statute of Frauds and confirms that promissory estoppel is not an available remedy to enforce oral modifications of contracts that fall within the statute. It reinforces the precedent from Tanenbaum, signaling to practitioners and parties that formality is paramount in real estate transactions. The court distinguishes between promissory estoppel, which cannot overcome the statute, and the narrower doctrine of waiver, which may excuse a delay in performance but cannot create a new, enforceable right. This ruling enhances predictability in real estate law by compelling parties to memorialize all modifications in writing, thereby reducing litigation over disputed oral agreements.
Unlock the full brief for DK Arena, Inc. v. EB Acquisitions I, LLC