Honsberg v. Lystra
410 So. 2d 661 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract clause allowing a seller to retain a portion of a buyer's deposit to cover actual expenses and losses upon breach is a provision for actual damages, not liquidated damages. The seller is therefore entitled to retain only the amount of their proven actual damages, and any remaining balance of the deposit must be returned to the buyer.
Facts:
- On August 22, 1979, Friedrich and Margarete Honsberg entered into a contract with Richard Lystra to purchase a mobile home for $28,000.
- The Honsbergs paid Lystra a total of $10,000 as an earnest money deposit.
- The agreement stipulated that the remainder of the purchase price was due 'on closing when Honsberg house is sold.'
- The contract contained a clause stating that upon the Honsbergs' failure to complete the purchase, Lystra could retain a portion of the deposit to 'reimburse the dealer for expenses and other losses.'
- The Honsbergs' house was not sold, and they did not complete the purchase of the mobile home from Lystra.
Procedural Posture:
- Friedrich and Margarete Honsberg sued Richard Lystra in a trial court for declaratory relief, seeking the return of their $10,000 earnest money deposit.
- The trial court entered a final judgment, finding that the Honsbergs had breached the purchase and sale agreement.
- The trial court calculated Lystra's actual damages as $4,826.26 but permitted him to retain a total of $7,413.13 from the deposit by applying a 'theory of equitable distribution' to the remaining balance.
- The Honsbergs (appellants) appealed the trial court's final judgment to the intermediate court of appeal, challenging the damages award.
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 a contract provision allowing a seller to retain a portion of a buyer's deposit to reimburse for actual 'expenses and other losses' authorize a court to award the seller an amount greater than their proven actual damages under a theory of 'equitable distribution'?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A contract provision for actual damages does not permit a court to award more than the proven damages through equitable distribution. The court found that the contract's damages clause was not a provision for liquidated damages, but rather a fund to secure the seller's recovery of the actual damages sustained due to the buyers' breach. The trial court correctly calculated the seller's actual damages at $4,826.26. Therefore, the seller, Lystra, is entitled to retain that specific amount from the deposit, and the remaining balance of $5,173.74 must be returned to the buyers, the Honsbergs. The trial court erred by applying a 'theory of equitable distribution' to divide the remaining funds, as this was not authorized by the parties' agreement or by any relevant statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between a liquidated damages clause, which sets a pre-agreed amount for breach, and a provision for actual damages secured by a deposit. It reinforces the principle that courts cannot use general equitable theories to rewrite a contract's plain terms or award damages beyond what the contract allows. The ruling emphasizes that when a contract specifies recovery of actual losses, the non-breaching party is limited to their proven damages, preventing them from receiving a windfall. This precedent guides lower courts to enforce damage clauses as written and curtails judicial discretion to impose remedies not contemplated by the contracting parties.
Unlock the full brief for Honsberg v. Lystra