WILLIAMS ISLAND ASSOCIATES, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND ITS GENERAL PARTNER BONREL REALTY CORP., A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
NORMAN COHEN, AS TRUSTEE, ETC., 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.
Williams Island Associates appeals a summary judgment order on liability in a breach of contract action. The court reversed, holding that the plaintiff's request for fill material was untimely under the contract terms because the material had reverted to the defendants before the defendants' delivery obligation arose.
The court held that the plaintiff's request was untimely because the fill material necessarily reverted to the defendants upon expiration of the five-year period, before the defendants' 90-day delivery obligation became operative. Therefore, the defendants did not breach the contract by failing to honor a request for material that no longer belonged to the plaintiffs.
[1] A party's request for performance under a contract is untimely if, by the time performance is due, the subject matter of the contract has reverted to the other party.
[2] A contractual obligation to deliver fill material is not breached when the requesting party's request, though made within a five-year window, would obligate delivery afte…
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 plaintiff Blattman could not, at that time, have complied with the agreement to "remove" the fill material within five years of the implementation of the agreement, it is plain that, under the agreement, the fill material necessarily reverted to the defendants upon expiration of the ninety (90) day period.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that material reverted to defendants before delivery obligation matured
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties had a written agreement requiring defendants to deliver fill material within 90 days of plaintiff Blattman's written request. However, Bla…
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 Breach Of Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendants [Williams Island Associates, Ltd., et al.] from a non-final order granting the plaintiffs’ [Norman Cohen, as trustee, et al.] motion for summary judgment on liability in a breach of contract action. In this action, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants breached a provision of a written agreement between the parties which obligated the defendants to deliver a quantity of fill material to the plaintiffs when timely requested by the plaintiff Blattman; the defendants denied any such breach of the agreement because the plaintiff Blattman’s request for the fill was, allegedly, not timely made. We reverse.
The agreement between the parties obligated the defendants to deliver the fill material no later than ninety (90) days following the receipt of the plaintiff Blattman’s written request for same. The plaintiff Blattman, however, was obligated by the subject agreement “to request and remove” the fill material no later than five years from the implementation date of the agreement, else the defendants would be entitled to remove and sell the said fill. Without dispute, the plaintiff Blattman, within five years after the implementation date of the subject agreement, made a written request of the defendant to deliver the fill material, which request the defendants failed to honor. The defendants, however, were not obligated to honor that request until ninety (90) days thereafter, which, without dispute, was more than five years after the implementation of the agreement. Because the plaintiff Blattman could not, at that time, have complied with the agreement to “remove” the fill material within five years of the implementation of the agreement, it is plain that, under the agreement, the fill material necessarily reverted to the defendants upon expiration of the ninety (90) day period. This being so, the plaintiff Blattman’s request was, in effect, untimely because, under the agreement, the fill belonged to the defendants by the time the plaintiffs’ belated request became operative.
The non-final order under review is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a summary judgment in favor of the defendants on count III of the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Murray Blattman under that certain Tr. Agreement dated December 18 v. Williams Island Assocs., Ltd., 592 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…pinion, suffice it to say that no error has been made to appear as to the first two orders under review. The plaintiffs essentially sought to set aside the final summary judgment which this court ordered in Williams Island Associates, Ltd. v. Cohen, 547 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), to amend their complaint four months after the trial court’s entry of such final summary judgment upon remand pursuant to our mandate, and to file a new complaint alleging breach of contract. These post-judgment motions and compl…