HomeMy WebLinkAbout0348 ~
,
4
which resulted in the exclusion of approximate3y 0.25 acres in the
Southeast corner of the property involved in the above-referenced
real estate sale. Therefore, the Court hereby grants the relief re-
~ _e _s._..: ~~~e n,.,.,.•.t ~i*.~ _ anA i-ha warrantv deed. re- _ _
l~I1Ciyl.Gti 1~~ t.Vtia~i i vv i iw~u~.~~.~ ~vs.:L • ~
- corded in O.R. Book 204, page 2017, and the mortgaqe deed, recorded in
O.R. Book 204, paqes.2018 through 2020, St. Lucie County, Florida, public
records, is hereby reformed to describe the following described real _
property in St. Lucie County, Florida, to-wit:
The Southeast Quarter (SI3 1/4 of the . South-
east Quarter (SE~ 1/4) of the Northeast Qt~arter -
(NE 1/4), LSSS the North 200 feet of the East
246 feet anii LESS rights-of-ways for public
roads and drainage canals of record.
2. The Court further finds that the DIEHLS have failed to
show grounds for recission of the contract under COUNTS I and III of"their
Second Amended Complaint and all requests for recission of said contract
are hereby denied.
3. In consideration of COUNT II of the DIEHLS' Amended Counte r-~~
claim and Crossclaim, the Court finds that at all times material to the
transaction, there was a valid agreeraent for a brokerage commission to
be paid by the Sellers in the executed contract, siqned April 3, 1974.
However, because tYie status of MENDES and MONTGOMERY chanqed sometime
in the course of the transaction and they became purchasers rather than
~ -
~ merely salesman and broker, respectively, payment of any brokerage com-
~ mission by the sellers to them was, under those circumstances, improper.
It is, therefore, ordered by this Court that MONTGOMERY, as broker rec-
eiving the commission, repay that;commission in the amount of $3,500.00
to the DIEHLS; it is further ordered that MENDrSS, as Trustee, repay the
DIEHLS certain monies in the amount of $264.77 which has been paid by
the DIEHLS as property taxes on the land in question, under Plaintiffs'
Complaint for the year 1973, for all of which let execution issue.
4. Regarding COUNT IV of the Second Amended Complaint by
the DIEHLS, the Court determines as a matter of fact that there was never
~
any intention by any of the parties that the certain parcel of land des-
cribed hereinafter be excluded from the sale of subject property, to-
wit:
The North 306 feet of the East 246 feet of
~ - ~
. 90~! 2J~ PAGE 3~
-2-
~
GERALD S. JAME3. ATTORN6Y AT LAW. POfT OFFICi BOX 808D. FQRT PIERCE, FLORIDA ~i~00. Til.[PHONE sOb-48t-2s00
- ~-:+,Y. .
~ ~ ~c-.a ~ ~ ~ ~ • -
F`~~
~ - .
~:x'a..'~°'~'~ ~,as° :a - _
- _