Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0997 - , - . ' ~ - 1 condominiwa as deposit and (2) By reducinq the price of Unit 613 to $55,900.00, ~ which accounted for the balance of the $35,360.00 that the plaintiffs had paid to Ocean Dunes North for the two condominiums. TAE COURT FINOS that Tony Sotolonqo wa~ president of~both ~orporations when he dealt with the plaintiffs and, from the evidence ~ ac~duced, ,Sotolonqo had actual and apparent authQrit~r__~ : to make such sales and an arranqement with the plaintiffs. Tony Sotolongo's Secretary, Lorraine Woodward, had an existing - contract on Unit 613 when Tony Sotolongo made the new agreement on Unit 613 with the plaintiffs. Lorraine Woodward had paid $7,390.00, as deposit on said Unit 613, but agreed with her ~ employer, Tonx Sotolongo, to assign her interest in the contract ~ ~ ~ to the plaintiffs, which testimony is unrebutted. It is further ~ • = noted here by the Court that Lorraine Woodward never received a ~ refund of her deposit from Tony Sotolongo or Ocean Dunes of ~ . Hutchinson Island. The testimony of Lorraine Woodward was that she was to receive her deposit plus $15,000.00, but the Court finds there was never any written notation agreeing to the payment of an additional $15,000.00 to Lorraine Woodward, which is barred by the statute of frauds. The Court notes that Tony Sotolongo has left the country and his whereabouts is unknown. ~ The plaintiffs ask for specific performance or actual damages ~ including punitive damages from the defendant, Ocean Dunes of ~ . . ~ Hutchinson Island Development Corporation, formerly Ocean Dunes Development Corporation. The plaintiffs also sued the Esc=ow Agent, Darlson & Bobko, and Lorraine~Woodward as well. THE COURT FINDS that Dcean Dunes of Hutchinson Island Develop- ment Corporation has completed construction of the condominium in ~ whichUnit No. 613 now exists. The developer cross-claimed against ~ the plaintif.fs.for fraud, as well as Defendant, Lorraine Woodward. The contract provided that the only remedy the purchasers- E E ~ plaintiffs had was the return of their money, however, the developer ~ ~ ~ - -2- ~ € ~ B~0 t~Gf ~ ~ _ . . _ _ . _ , ~ _