Lexplug logoLexplug

Wolofsky v. Behrman

District Court of Appeal of Florida
454 So.2d 614 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A seller of real property who has the ability to convey title but refuses to do so for personal reasons acts in bad faith and is liable for full compensatory damages, including the buyer's loss of bargain.


Facts:

  • Peter Wolofsky, a condominium developer, initially sold an apartment to Harold and Elaine Behrman.
  • Unable to sell their primary residence, the Behrmans decided to sell the condominium instead.
  • Wolofsky agreed to buy the condominium back from the Behrmans for $73,000, and the parties signed a contract.
  • Before the closing, the Behrmans delivered the keys to the apartment to Wolofsky's sales agent.
  • A few weeks before the closing date, Harold Behrman visited the apartment and discovered that someone, a prospective purchaser from Wolofsky, had been staying there without his permission.
  • Enraged by this discovery, Behrman informed Wolofsky that he was terminating their relationship, returned Wolofsky's deposit, and refused to complete the sale.

Procedural Posture:

  • Peter Wolofsky sued Harold and Elaine Behrman in the trial court, seeking specific performance and damages.
  • Wolofsky later abandoned the claim for specific performance, proceeding only on the claim for damages.
  • The Behrmans filed a counterclaim for trespass.
  • The trial court found that the Behrmans had breached the contract but had not acted in bad faith.
  • The trial court awarded Wolofsky damages limited to the return of his deposit plus interest.
  • Wolofsky, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with the Behrmans as appellees.

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 seller of real property act in bad faith, thereby entitling the buyer to full compensatory damages, when the seller refuses to convey title out of personal anger over the buyer allowing a third party to temporarily occupy the property before closing?


Opinions:

Majority - Downey, Judge

Yes, the seller's refusal to convey title constitutes bad faith, entitling the buyer to full compensatory damages. Florida follows the rule that a seller who breaches a real estate contract in good faith is only liable for the return of the buyer's deposit. However, a seller acts in bad faith when they have title but simply refuse to convey. In this case, the Behrmans had clear title and the ability to close the sale. Their refusal was not based on an inability to perform due to factors beyond their control, but rather on their 'excessive pique' over the unauthorized, temporary occupancy. Because the reason for non-performance was entirely within their control, their refusal to do their best to complete the conveyance constitutes a lack of good faith, making them liable for the buyer's loss of bargain damages.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'bad faith' exception for damages in Florida real estate contract breaches. It establishes that a seller's subjective, emotional reaction to a buyer's minor pre-closing breach is not a legally sufficient reason to refuse conveyance without incurring liability for full 'loss of bargain' damages. The ruling reinforces that the 'good faith' defense is reserved for sellers who are genuinely unable to convey title due to circumstances beyond their control, not for those who simply choose not to out of personal anger. This case serves as a precedent that a willful refusal to close, even if prompted by the buyer's actions, will likely be deemed bad faith.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Wolofsky v. Behrman (1984) 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 Wolofsky v. Behrman