TROPIC TERRACE GARDENS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GERALD B. MOODY, MARY S. MOODY, AND SUBURBAN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court amended the final judgment in a condominium recreation lease dispute to correct an inadvertent error regarding the scope of a rent escalation moratorium. The developer's moratorium offer, dated September 6, 1979, was intended to benefit original purchasers and owners as of that date, but the judgment mistakenly limited it to owners as of November 1, 1975.
The court amended the final judgment to correct the date limitation, extending moratorium benefits to original purchasers and those owning apartments on September 6, 1979 (the date of the offer), rather than November 1, 1975. The moratorium provides a ten-year period from November 1, 1975 during which acceleration clauses are not enforceable, with rent increases not commencing until fifteen years from November 1, 1975.
[1] A court may amend a final judgment to correct an inadvertent error in reciting the terms of an offer that was incorporated into the judgment.
[2] A moratorium on rent increases, as offered by a developer and incorporated into a final judgment, may be limited to original purchasers and those owning property on the d…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the final judgment inadvertently limited the benefits of the moratorium to the original purchasers and those owning the apartments on November 1, 1975, when the record reflects that offer was intended to include original purchasers and those owning apartments on the day of the offer, which was September 6, 1979”
Identifies the error in the lower court judgment regarding the scope and timing of the moratorium benefit
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute over a recreation lease in a condominium development. The developer made an offer of a moratorium on rental escalation und…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
In the course of this litigation the developer made an offer of a moratorium on the escalation of rentals under the recreation lease which was incorporated into the final judgment. However, the final judgment inadvertently limited the benefits of the moratorium to the original purchasers and those owning the apartments on November 1, 1975, when the record reflects that offer was intended to include original purchasers and those owning apartments on the day of the offer, which was September 6, 1979. Accordingly, the two paragraphs of the final judgment which recite the moratorium are hereby amended to read as follows:
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the offer submitted to the Court on September 6, 1979, by the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff is hereby accepted and on the basis of this offer, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that those original purchasers and owners who are bound under the Lease on the date of the offer shall receive a moratorium on any increases in the ground rent from November 1, 1975. That is, a ten (10) year period shall be computed from November 1,1975 and during this period the acceleration clauses in the recreation lease are not enforceable.
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the formula provided in the Lease for increasing the ground rent will not commence to act under the five (5) year increment period until five (5) years have expired from the ten (10) year period. Consequently, the first ground rent increases that will be permitted will be fifteen (15) years from November 1, 1975. The protection offered by the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, would not apply to any persons who were subsequent purchasers after September 6, 1979, only the original purchasers or those persons owning the apartments on September 6, 1979. Any subsequent resale would be subject to the Lease as it exists. This protection offered by the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff does not run with the land, but does apply to the current occupancies and transfers by operation of law. At such time as the fifteen (15) years expires, the base date in the Lease has been determined to be and is hereby established as 1971, the date of the Lease. All future increases, when effective, shall be computed from that base date.
As amended, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.