Case Name: Javier ROSIQUE, Appellant, v. WINDLEY COVE, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-03-21
Citations: 542 So. 2d 1014
Docket Number: No. 88-1599
Parties: Javier ROSIQUE, Appellant, v. WINDLEY COVE, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 542
Pages: 1014–1019

Head Matter:
Javier ROSIQUE, Appellant, v. WINDLEY COVE, LTD., etc., et al., Appellees.
No. 88-1599.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
March 21, 1989.
Rehearing Denied May 23, 1989.
William J. Berger, for appellant.
Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Ar-naldo Velez, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Javier Rosique appeals from a final judgment of the trial court granting rescission of a real estate contract, subsequent to closing, upon a finding of mutual mistake. For the following reasons, we reverse.
On October 30, 1985, Rosique entered into a contract with Eugenio Diaz for the sale of three acres of land improved by a small motel. The addendum to the contract contained the following provisions:
1. Buyer hereby agrees to purchase subject property in "as is" condition.
2. Seller represents that the subject property consists of approximately 3.00 acres of usable land and that this transaction also includes additional submerged lands. Buyer may have a survey prepared at his own cost to ascertain the above representations.
3.Seller represents that subject property has RU-7 usage. Buyer shall have 30 days from the date of execution and acceptance of this agreement by both buyer and seller to obtain a letter from Monroe County Building and Zoning Department confirming that said property has RU-7 usage and that at least 3 acres can be fully developed under the RU-7 classification. In the event that said property cannot be utilized under the RU-7 classification, buyers shall have the right to cancel this contract considering this transaction null and void and to obtain an immediate return of all escrow deposits made hereunder. Seller also represents that classification RU-7 permits the construction of a Motel of up to 25 units per acre.
Diaz's rights as purchaser were subsequently assigned to Eduardo Cantera who, in turn, assigned the rights to Windley Cove, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership which intended to build a seventy-five unit motel on the property. A closing scheduled for March 3, 1986, was postponed because Windley Cove could not confirm that the existing zoning would allow construction of twenty-five units per acre. After the postponement, an agent for Rosique secured a letter from the Monroe County Building Department. The letter confirmed that the property had motel zoning but was silent concerning the allowable unit density per acre. Windley Cove, although dissatisfied with the letter, closed on the property on June 19, 1986. After closing, Windley Cove expended $150,000 in an effort to change the zoning from what proved to be an allowable density of only fifteen units per acre. When its efforts proved fruitless, Windley Cove defaulted, triggering foreclosure actions. Windley Cove cross-claimed, alleging at trial that there had been a "mutual mistake" concerning the zoning density.
The trial court erred in finding that Windley Cove was entitled to rescind the contract. A party who seeks rescission of an instrument on the ground of mutual mistake has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that a mistake of fact occurred in the transaction. Nussey v. Canfield, 146 So.2d 779 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). Facts must be alleged to show that, having discovered a mistake, the party denied the contract in a reasonably prompt fashion. Rood Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 102 So.2d 139 (Fla.1958). Testimony at trial by Cantera, Windley Cove's general partner, revealed that Cantera was aware of the zoning uncertainties well before closing but elected to proceed on the contract.
Q. [by Rosique's attorney] Sir, you mean to tell me between October 30, 1985, the date of the contract, and June 19, 1986, approximately eight months, you couldn't verify whether you could build the units that you wanted to build?
A. [by Cantera] I'm not trying to be facetious. You just told his Honor that you had title problems and all that. But, anyway, the answer is we paid over two hundred something thousand dollars.
Q. That is immaterial.
A. No, it isn't. We tried. The answer is no, we couldn't verify.
Q. Why didn't you back out of the deal then? You had 30 days to do it.
A. Because we, both of us, the buyer and the seller, were trying to make the deal go. And the reason was this: The County had rezoned the place and your client had failed to pay the Florida Restaurant Commission and it was no longer a hotel. He had no occupational license and it had never been operated as a hotel since he bought it. Therefore, that was the problem and that is the position the County is taking today.
Q. Were you aware of this problem?
A. I was aware of the problem.
Q. So why didn't you back out of the deal, if you were aware?
A. Because at that particular time we had spent so much money I felt if we were protected with the purchase money mortgage, that I would take my chances, and I did.
It is uncontroverted that Windley Cove had the right to cancel the contract if it could not verify the zoning. Having elected to "take a chance" and close, notwithstanding knowledge of the zoning problem, Windley Cove waived its right to rescind. Rood. Indeed, Windley Cove never raised the defense of mutual mistake until trial, almost two years after the closing.
The judgment granting rescission is reversed. The cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of Ro-sique on the rescission claim and, in accordance with the stipulations of the parties, to grant judgment in favor of Rosique on his foreclosure cross-claim.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
SCHWARTZ, C.J., and JORGENSON, J., concur.