However, it was Alexander’s understanding that Lamar could not make the purchase until the divorce was final. Alexander told Lamar prior to the divorce proceeding the price for which he would sell the condominium and told Lamar that, if he got another offer, he would give Lamar a chance to match the offer. Ultimately, no one made an offer, and Lamar signed the contract on May 10, 2002. The trial court declined to set aside the decree and ruled that Lamar had not committed fraud in connection with his purchase of the condominium. The court further declared that the condominium was not marital property but that, even if it was, an unequal division of it should be made to Lamar “based upon the Court specifically finding that the evidence indicates that the condominium was acquired by th ) (<HOLDING>). Further, a contract for the sale of real
holding that lack of closing date in option contract did not preclude enforcement by specific performance holding as a matter of law that mere fact that a contract definite in material respects contains some terms which are subject to further negotiation  will not bar a decree for specific performance if in the courts discretion specific performance should be granted holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity recognizing that a buyer may sue for specific performance of a realestate contract