Opinion ID: 453591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability of Fir

Text: 7 The bankruptcy court held that Lyman was authorized to present the $50,000.00 check on behalf of Fir, finding that there was no basis for rescinding the contract between Fir and the debtors and that the bad check was tendered by Lyman on behalf of his client, Fir. Record, vol. 1 at 134-35. This finding must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous. Matter of Multiponics, Inc., 622 F.2d 709, 713 (5th Cir.1980). 2 The record reveals that Lyman was retained as Fir's attorney, was its president and owner and stood to gain a commission from the company if the transaction was completed. Based on these facts and a review of the entire record, we are not left with the requisite definite and firm conviction that the bankruptcy court's factual finding was incorrect. As a result, the district court erred in finding that Lyman was not authorized to tender the check to Tavormina. 8 Whether Tavormina is entitled to the $50,000.00 legitimately tendered by Lyman on behalf of Fir depends on the interpretation of the term paid in the liquidated damages provision of the real estate sales agreement. See Record, vol. 1 at 5. The general rule in Florida is that when a real estate contract provides that if a sale is not closed because of the fault of the buyer [then] the deposit paid under the contract is to be retained by the seller, the seller cannot recover a deposit not actually made. Stewart v. Mehrlust, 409 So.2d 1085, 1086 (2d DCA Fla.1982); see also Campbell v. Salman, 384 So.2d 1331, 1332-33 (3d DCA Fla.1980). In Makris v. Williams, 426 So.2d 1186 (4th DCA Fla.1983), however, the court held that money is paid within the meaning of a liquidated damages clause in a real estate contract when the defaulting buyer represents to the seller that a deposit has been placed in an escrow account for the benefit of the seller notwithstanding the buyer's failure to actually follow through. See id. at 1188-89. In this case, Fir's tender of a check to Tavormina is a similar representation that the deposit funds are reserved for the seller's benefit. The fact that the defaulting buyer's representation in Makris was contained in the real estate contract itself whereas Fir's representation was in the form of a check does not appear to be material. See, e.g., Westminister Corp. v. Neptune Uranium Corp., 144 Colo. 281, 355 P.2d 1095, 1097-98 (1960) (dishonored check was a payment made within the meaning of a liquidated damages clause). Accordingly, we hold that the district court erroneously affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the $50,000.00 had not been paid.