Jones v. Warmack
967 So. 2d 400, 2007 WL 3033520 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a contract for the sale of land provides a specific procedure for identifying and resolving title defects, which gives the seller the option not to cure certain defects and the buyer the option to terminate, the seller's exercise of the option not to cure does not constitute an anticipatory breach. The buyer's independent contractual obligations, such as making scheduled payments, remain in effect unless and until the buyer properly terminates the agreement according to its terms.
Facts:
- Richard Warmack (Seller) assigned his rights in two land purchase contracts to J. Michael Jones d/b/a Riviera Partners, LLC (Buyer) through an Assignment Agreement.
- The Agreement required Buyer to make three earnest money deposits; Buyer timely made the first two, totaling $200,000.
- On January 25, 2005, Seller provided a title commitment to Buyer.
- The next day, Buyer notified Seller of nine objections to the title.
- The underlying contracts gave Seller a 'Curative Period' and the option to elect not to cure defects, after which Buyer had ten days to either terminate the agreement or accept the defective title.
- On February 3, 2005, Seller responded that some title objections could not be cured and reminded Buyer of his ten-day period to accept or terminate.
- During this ten-day period, on February 8, 2005, Buyer's third earnest money deposit became due, and Buyer failed to make the payment.
- On February 11, 2005, after the payment was missed, Buyer sent a letter stating he did not accept the title and wished to cancel the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- J. Michael Jones (Buyer) filed suit against Richard Warmack (Seller) in the trial court.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment that Buyer was entitled to a refund of his $200,000 in deposits.
- Seller filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Seller's motion for summary judgment, determining that Seller was entitled to the earnest money deposits.
- Buyer (as Appellant) appealed the trial court's final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
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 seller's notification that some title defects are incurable, as permitted by the contract's specific remedial provisions, constitute an anticipatory breach of the contract that excuses the buyer from making a subsequent required payment?
Opinions:
Majority - Thomas, J.
No. A seller's action, when consistent with a contract's specific remedial provisions for title defects, is not an anticipatory breach. The court reasoned that the contract must be read as a whole to determine the parties' intent. The contract included a detailed remedial structure (section 4(b)) specifically to resolve title objections, giving the seller the option not to cure and the buyer the ultimate choice to accept the defective title or terminate the contract. To interpret the seller's delivery of a title with defects as an immediate breach would render these carefully negotiated remedial provisions 'superfluous.' The court held that the Buyer had two distinct contractual responsibilities: (1) pay the third deposit by its due date and (2) decide whether to accept or reject the title within the ten-day period. Adherence to one responsibility did not excuse performance of the other; therefore, the Buyer's failure to pay the deposit was the first breach, entitling the Seller to the earnest money.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that courts will enforce contractual provisions as written, especially when parties have negotiated specific remedial procedures. It clarifies that a party acting within the rights granted by such a procedure is not in breach of the contract. The ruling serves as a caution to contracting parties that their performance obligations are often independent and cannot be suspended merely because a dispute-resolution mechanism within the contract has been triggered. This precedent strengthens the position of sellers who follow contractual steps for addressing title defects and places the onus on buyers to continue their own performance until they formally terminate the agreement as specified.
