TURNBERRY TOWERS CORP., TURNBERRY CORP. AND FLAGSHIP NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, APPELLANTS,
v.
FELIX MECHOULAM, APPELLEE
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.
In this interlocutory appeal, the court reversed an award of attorney's fees to a condominium buyer who prevailed in a specific performance suit against the developer and lender. The court held that statutory attorney's fees provisions applicable to disputes between unit owners and developers do not apply to purchase agreements entered into before the buyer becomes a unit owner.
The court held that the purchase and sale agreement does not constitute a contract between a condominium unit owner and a developer within the meaning of the statute because at the time the agreement was entered into, Mechoulam was merely a potential purchaser and not yet a condominium unit owner. Therefore, the buyer was not entitled to recover attorney's fees under Section 718.125.
[1] A purchase and sale agreement for a condominium unit entered into by a potential purchaser and a developer is not a "contract or lease between a condominium unit owner... …
[2] A party is not a "condominium unit owner" within the contemplation of Florida Statutes Section 718.125 at the time they enter into a purchase and sale agreement for a con…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 purchase and sale agreement entered into between the parties is not 'a contract or lease between a condominium unit owner ... and a developer' within the meaning of the above statute sufficient to support an award of attorney's fees thereunder”
The court's core holding explaining why the statutory attorney's fees provision did not apply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMechoulam brought a specific performance suit against Turnberry Towers Corporation, Turnberry Corporation, and Flagship National Bank of Miami (truste…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Purchase And Sale Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1181] PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order awarding attorney’s fees in a specific performance suit. The plaintiff buyer Felix Mechoulam brought suit below for specific performance of a purchase and sale agreement for the conveyance of a condominium unit against the defendants: seller/developer Turnberry Towers Corporation; Turnberry Corporation; and Flagship National Bank of Miami, as trustee of a land trust established by the developer. The purchase and sale agreement contained a clause that provided, in effect, for a stated amount of damages and attorney’s fees for the defendants in the event of a default under the contract. The plaintiff Mecho-ulam obtained a final summary judgment below in his favor and a subsequent order awarding him attorney’s fees under Section 718.125, Florida Statutes (1982), which provides as follows:
Attorney’s fees. — If a contract or lease between a condominium unit owner or association and a developer contains a provision allowing attorney’s fees to the developer, should any litigation arise under the provisions of the contract or lease, the court shall also allow reasonable attorney’s fees to the unit owner or association when the unit owner or association prevails in any action by or against the unit owner or association with respect to the contract or lease.
The defendants appeal.
We are compelled to reverse the order under review upon a holding that the purchase and sale agreement entered into between the parties is not “a contract or lease between a condominium unit owner ... and a developer” within the meaning of the above statute sufficient to support an award of attorney’s fees thereunder. Indeed, at the time the subject agreement was entered into, the plaintiff Mechoulam was merely a potential purchaser of a condominium unit and was in no sense a condominium unit owner within the contemplation of the above statute. We have recently reached precisely this result in Pacheco v. Lincoln Palace Condominium, Inc., 410 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), in interpreting an indistinguishably analogous statute [§ 718.303(1), Fla.Stat. (1982) ]. The order under review is, accordingly,
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maillard v. Dowdell, 528 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…not a “proceeding arising because of an alleged failure of an apartment owner ... to comply with the terms of Declaration.” The contractual provision awarding attorney’s fees would be inapplicable to plaintiffs. Turnberry Towers Corp. v. Mechoulam, 425 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Pacheco v. Lincoln Palace Condominium, Inc., 410 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We turn now to the legal malpractice count against attorney Dowdell. The seller of the condominium unit, the William Creasy Agency, Inc., allegedly…
-
Terraces OF Boca Assocs. v. Ansel Gladstein and Ruth R. Gladstein, 543 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…incorrect in the instant case. Since buyers were only potential purchasers of a condominium unit and not a unit owner for purposes of section 718.125, the trial court erred if it awarded fees under this section. Turnberry Towers Corp. v. Mechoulam, 425 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Furthermore, an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 would also be error because there was not a complete lack of a justiciable issue before the trial court. AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART. ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEI…
Authorities Cited
- Pacheco v. Lincoln Palace Condo., Inc., 410 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)