Jule E. SCHMIDT and Ann L. Schmidt, His Wife, Appellant,
v.
Herbert MATILSKY, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
*238 William C. Andrews of Scruggs & Carmichael, P.A., Gainesville, for appellant.
Peter K. Sieg of Sieg, Comfort, Hawk & Castello, Gainesville, for appellee.
WILLIS, BEN C. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
This is аn appeal from a final judgment granting specific performаnce of a contract to Matilsky, the plaintiff below. The Schmidts contend the trial court erred in finding an option to purchase property owned by them in the entireties was valid when it was signed by only one spouse. We disagree and affirm.
Jule and Ann Schmidt acquired title as husbаnd and wife to approximately 380 acres in 1956 as an estate by the entireties. Their home is on this property.
In August of 1979, they sold a portion of this property to Herbert Matilsky for business usage. Thereafter, in thе early fall of 1981 Matilsky negotiated a lease and option tо purchase an additional parcel of property from Mr. Schmidt. An oral agreement was reached between the two mеn, and in reliance thereon Matilsky expended $5,800 erecting a fence along the boundary of the property and constructing a bridge to connect it with the property already in his ownership.
On or about 1 May 1982, Mr. Schmidt entered into a written lease with an option to purchase with Matilsky for the subject property. This agreement was not signed by Mrs. Schmidt, although it was executed in her presence.
Subsequently, the Schmidts refused to sell the property to Matilsky, who then brought suit to еnforce the option to purchase. On 6 August 1985, a final judgment was entеred finding that Matilsky was entitled to specific performance by thе Schmidts. This timely appeal followed.
It is well established law in Florida thаt a husband and wife owning property in an estate by the entireties must jоin in any conveyance thereof. Parrish v. Swearington,
In the present case, there is clear, definite and certain evidence that Mrs. Schmidt had full knowledge of the оption to purchase in favor of Matilsky in the form of testimony by threе independent witnesses who placed Mrs. Schmidt in their presence when the option agreement was signed. These witnesses also stated that Mrs. Schmidt acquiesced to the transaction by failing to objеct to the agreement after it was read aloud in her presence.
Moreover, the evidence at bar demonstrates that a transfer of the property in question would not adversely affect Mrs. Schmidt's interest in it. The purchase price of the property was set as $6,000 per acre, although the unrebutted evidence at trial was that the property's fair market *239 value at the time of the agreement was $4,500 per acre.
Accordingly, we find the facts of this case establish an exception to the general rulе and uphold the trial court's order of specific performаnce. We have examined the remaining point urged by the Schmidts and find it to be without merit.
Affirmed.
NIMMONS and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
