Lexplug logoLexplug

Satchell v. Van Brode

District Court of Appeal of Florida
1971 Fla. App. LEXIS 6510, 248 So.2d 245 (1971)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A purchaser who defaults on a real estate contract is not entitled to recover their earnest money deposit, even if the contract does not contain a forfeiture or liquidated damages clause.


Facts:

  • Van Brode ('Buyer') and Satchell ('Seller') entered into a written agreement for the purchase of a residence owned by Satchell for $28,000.
  • Van Brode paid a $500 earnest money deposit to Satchell as part of the agreement.
  • The purchase-sale agreement was not drafted by an attorney.
  • The contract contained no provisions specifying what would happen to the deposit in the event of a breach by either party.
  • Van Brode subsequently defaulted on the agreement to purchase the residence.

Procedural Posture:

  • Van Brode (Buyer) sued Satchell (Seller) in a trial court for the return of his $500 earnest money deposit.
  • Satchell filed a counterclaim against Van Brode for damages resulting from the breach of the agreement.
  • Following a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment awarding the $500 deposit to Van Brode.
  • The trial court's judgment also denied any recovery for Satchell on his counterclaim.
  • Satchell (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court; Van Brode is the appellee.

Locked

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 defaulting purchaser in a real estate contract have a right to recover an earnest money deposit when the contract lacks a forfeiture or liquidated damages clause?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. A vendee in default is not entitled to recover money paid in part performance of an executory contract, even in the absence of a forfeiture provision. The court relied on the established precedent in Beatty v. Flannery, which holds that a defaulting purchaser cannot recover a down payment from the seller. While acknowledging that exceptions to this rule exist, the court found that none applied to the facts of this case. Therefore, the seller has the right to retain the earnest money deposit. The court did, however, affirm the trial court's denial of the seller's counterclaim for additional damages, giving deference to the trial court's findings of fact as the trier of fact.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a significant default rule in contract law, particularly for real estate transactions. It clarifies that a seller's right to retain an earnest money deposit upon a buyer's breach is not contingent on an explicit forfeiture clause in the agreement. This provides sellers with a baseline level of protection and places the onus on purchasers to negotiate specific contractual terms for the return of their deposit if they wish to avoid this common law rule. The case serves as a strong reminder of the legal consequences of defaulting on a contract, even where the contract itself is silent on the specific penalty.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Satchell v. Van Brode (1971) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Satchell v. Van Brode