HomeMy WebLinkAbout1422 and testimony is disputed as to the costs of these improvements.
Defendants introduced into evidence cancelled checks in the
amount of S2,639.73 for the costa of these improvements. (D-14) j
(D-15) Plaintiffs contend that the $10,000 represented by the
new agreement for deed represented the payoff of the Citizens
Federal loan of $6,250, plus estimated coats of the improvements s
of $3,750. The application for building permit for these improve-
meats (D-6) shows the estimated costs of $1,000.
The payment record book-under t~:p agreement for deed
t
t
(P-7) does show that on February 15, 1974, there was added to the
i
r
balance due the amount of $15,995.92 under the agreement for deed.
However, this book was not signed by Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs
refused to sign another agreement for deed dated February 15, 1974,
which added this amount to the previous agreement for deed. (D-7)
In the counterclaim and in defense to the complaint, Defendants
are attempting to add an indebtedness to the existing agreement
for deed on the basis of an oral agreement, the payment of which
extends for a period of more than one year. This is in clear
violation of the statute of frauds, F.S. 725.01, which provides
that no action shall be brought to charge any person on any agree-
meat that is not to be performed in the space of one year from the
f
making thereof, unless the agreement or promise is in writing and
r
t
signed by the party to be charged.
The counterclaim was filed on December 13, 1976. The
t
~ old bills were incurred by Plaintiffs between 1961 and 1964. The
improvements to the real estate were made in the latter part of
1968 and early 1969. Since there is nothing in writing, signed
i
f
by Plaintiffs, the four year statute of. limitation, F.S. 95.11(3)(k)
and the one year statute of limitation, F.S. 95.11(5)(b) far an
action to force an equitable lien for the furnishing of labor,
services or materials for improvement of real property, clearly
x
bar the counterclaim. The increase of the payments by Plaintiffs
a
from $105.00 to $130.00 per month in February, 1974 and the addition
r on the same date of the old bills of $15,995.92 to the payment
K
record book is not a distinct unqualified recognition of the obli-
gation of Indebtedness. Hall v Brown, 86 So, 277 (Fla. 1920). At
s
- 3-
X332 ~~1420
.z=_;-
y