From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nat. Indus. Bank of Miami v. Forbes

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Dec 19, 1972
270 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Opinion

No. 72-381.

December 19, 1972.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County, L. Clayton Nance, J.

Richard Krinzman, Peter Strelkow, and Robert R. Frank, of Frank, Strelkow Marx, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Elliott Noel Zack, of Leff, Pesetsky Zack, North Miami Beach, for appellees.


We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and heard oral argument. On the basis thereof, we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to clearly appear. The final judgment finding for the defendants is affirmed except to the extent as hereinafter modified. Inasmuch as the record reflects that the real property which was the res of the action for specific performance was conveyed to a third party, this cause is remanded to the trial court for a determination as to whether a decree of specific performance can be rendered in light of such conveyance. 29A Fla.Jur. Specific Performance § 51. Should the trial court find that it is impossible to grant the equitable relief requested then in that event the trial court shall be authorized to conduct an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of ascertaining and awarding damages incidental to the main relief sought. See Miller v. Rolfe, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So.2d 132.

Affirmed, as modified and remanded with instructions.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Nat. Indus. Bank of Miami v. Forbes

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Dec 19, 1972
270 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

Nat. Indus. Bank of Miami v. Forbes

Case Details

Full title:NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL BANK OF MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION OF THE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Dec 19, 1972

Citations

270 So. 2d 426 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

Citing Cases

Morales v. Iqbal

However, because the record reflects the real property that was the subject of the action for specific…

Grossman v. Selewacz

It was not error for the court to deny the motion. While it is true that in the original judgment the court…