Shores of Panama Club, LLC v. Shores of Panama Resort Community Ass'n

204 So. 3d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) · District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District · October 28, 2016

Summary

The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a summary judgment dispute over ownership of a condominium lobby front desk and the space behind it. The court held that the condominium declaration's specific allocation of 396 square feet to Commercial Office #1 controlled over the declaration's general description of perimetrical boundaries and the lobby diagram. It reversed and remanded for entry of judgment awarding ownership of the front desk and adjoining area to Shores of Panama Club, LLC.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Writing for the Court
Wolf, J.; Lewis, J.; Ray, J.
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
October 28, 2016
Procedural posture
The condominium association sued the Club, alleging wrongful possession of the lobby front desk. The parties filed competing motions for partial summary judgment concerning ownership of the front desk and the space behind it. The Club appealed the trial court's ruling awarding ownership to the Association.
Standard of review
De novo review applies to orders granting summary judgment and to interpretations of condominium declarations.
Precedential value
Published Florida First District Court of Appeal opinion; precedential within the court's jurisdiction unless subsequently limited or overruled.
Parties
Shores of Panama Club, LLC v. Shores of Panama Resort Community Association, Inc.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

real estatesummary judgmentstatutory interpretationcivil procedure

Practice areas

Real estate lawCondominium lawCivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the condominium declaration assigned the lobby front desk and the area behind it to the Club's Commercial Office #1 or to the Association's Commercial Registration Unit.
  2. Whether the declaration's general description of perimetrical boundaries constituted a 'courses and distances' measurement that superseded the declaration's specific 396-square-foot allocation.
  3. Whether summary judgment was properly entered in favor of the Association on the front-desk ownership claims.

Holdings

  1. The declaration's specific allocation of 396 square feet to Commercial Office #1 controlled the disputed boundary because the general perimetrical-boundaries language and the lobby diagram were unclear regarding internal walls and did not establish a contrary boundary.
  2. The declaration's general perimetrical-boundaries language was not a 'courses and distances' measurement, so the boundary-marker hierarchy discussed in Wetstone did not control the interpretation of the condominium's internal units.
  3. The trial court erred in awarding ownership of the front desk and the area behind it to the Association; summary judgment on the ownership counts should be entered in favor of the Club.

Key quotations

Boundaries of condominium units must be discerned through the declaration of condominium itself, which must contain “a graphic description of the improvements in which units are located and a plot plan thereof that, together with the declaration, are in sufficient detail to identify the common elements and each unit and their relative locations and approximate dimensions.” (543)
The very general definition of perimetrical boundaries found in the Declaration lacks both a direction and a distance, and is therefore not a “courses and distances” measurement. (544)

Factual background

The Club and the Association each owned a contiguous unit in the same condominium and disputed ownership of the lobby front desk and the area behind it. The condominium declaration described unit boundaries in words, by square-footage allocations, and through diagrams. Commercial Office #1 was specifically allocated 396 square feet, but the Association's interpretation of the diagram and boundary language would have limited the Club's unit to approximately 75 square feet unless the front desk area were included.

Procedural history

The Association brought suit against the Club and moved for partial summary judgment on the front-desk-related claims. The Club filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled that the Association owned the front desk, and the Club appealed. The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the Club on the ownership controversy.

Remand instructions

The trial court must enter summary judgment on the counts concerning ownership of the front desk and the area behind it in favor of the Club.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…