V & R, INC., ROGER BACON, STEPHEN VINCENT, AND MONTEGO BAY CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARTHUR M. WOLFF, MICHAEL H. GORA, GULFSTREAM CAMERA & SOUND, INC., HEATH-JO, INC., D/B/A WYN'S GREEN OLIVE LOUNGE, ALOHA TRAVEL AGENCY INC. AND JOHN CAVELL D/B/A FORT LAUDERDALE SECRETARIAL SERVICE, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATE AS A CLASS, ET AL., 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 reversed summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether a plat dedication of parking lot thoroughfares to public use prohibits commercial tenants from operating valet parking.
Summary judgment is improper when the language of a plat dedication is subject to different reasonable interpretations and evidence disputes whether valet parking is consistent with the dedication.
[1] When a plat dedication language is susceptible to different reasonable interpretations and evidence disputes the consistency of a proposed use with the dedication, summar…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plat for Coral Shopping Center dedicated all thoroughfares to perpetual public use in fee simple. Commercial tenants operated valet parking in the c…
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 Ambiguity In Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
At issue is the propriety of a summary final judgment. We conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist and, therefore, we reverse.
The dedication in the plat of the Coral Shopping Center contains the following language: “All thoroughfares are dedicated to the perpetual use of the public in fee simple forever.” The trial court interpreted this language to prohibit commercial tenants in the shopping center from utilizing valet parking in the common parking lot. In their answer to the complaint, the defendant/tenants asserted that their use of the parking lot is not inconsistent with the plat. Because the language in the plat is subject to different reasonable interpretations, and in view of the disputed testimony that valet parking promotes the best use of the parking lot, we conclude that the pleadings and evidence before the trial court raise genuine issues of material fact concerning the proper interpretation of the dedication. Consequently, summary judgment was improper. See Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot Associates, 425 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for rev. denied, 436 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1983); see also Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Eaton v. Madsen, 388 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Sarasota Cnty. v. Stanton Inv. Co. OF Mo., 283 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Eaton v. Blair Madsen, 388 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cove Club Invs., Ltd. v. Sandalfoot Assocs., Inc., 425 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)