Wolofsky v. Behrman

454 So. 2d 614 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P, sold one of his apartments Ds. Ds intended to move into the apartment when they were successful in selling their single-family residence. Their residence did not sell. Ds decided to sell the condominium instead. D accepted P's offer to buy it for $73,000. P was not interested in the furnishings therein. His sales agent agreed to try to sell them for $4,000. D delivered the keys to the apartment to the agent, who was able to obtain an offer of only $3,000, which D refused. A few weeks before the closing was due, D visited the apartment and found evidence that someone had been staying there without his permission. The electricity was on; he found a T.V. and radio, bedclothes on the bed, food in the kitchen, and a few clothes in a closet. D was very pissed. P did not have permission to allow anyone to occupy the apartment. The contract between the parties was silent as to possession. P offered to compensate Ds for the use of the apartment. D advised P that there could be no further relationship between them and he returned the deposit and refused to close. P had obtained a purchaser for the apartment for $100,000 and the sales agent had allowed that purchaser to stay briefly in the apartment. P sued Ds for specific performance and damages. Ds counterclaimed for trespass. Under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the equitable title was in P and any loss or destruction to the property would fall upon him The final judgment states that Ds admit they breached the contract and they are liable. They denied they acted in bad faith. The trial court found no showing of bad faith and found for Ds. P appealed.