MAC ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCES LAMONTAGNE, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1990-01-31
No. 89-01531
DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
556 So. 2d 460 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

MAC Associates, a condominium developer, appeals a judgment that included an award of $24,926.98 in damages on a count seeking only declaratory relief and accounting. The court affirms the declaratory judgment interpreting the service and management agreement but reverses the damages award as improper on count one, remanding for proper consideration of all damages claims under count two.


Holding

The court affirms the declaratory judgment and order of clarification on count one but reverses the award of money damages on count one because count one did not request money damages and the award was premature. However, the court affirms the amount of overcharges determined by the accountings and remands for the trial court to properly consider all damages issues under count two with a full hearing.


Headnotes

[1] A court may grant supplemental relief based upon a declaratory decree only after application for such relief, with reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, is provi…

[2] A final judgment awarding money damages is premature when the underlying count in the complaint did not seek such damages and the award is based on issues reserved for a…

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

Key Quotes

“Supplemental relief based upon a declaratory decree is properly granted only after application for such relief by petition with reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing accorded to the adverse party.”

Establishes the legal standard that supplemental damages must follow proper procedural requirements after a declaratory judgment

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

MAC Associates and unit owners disputed a service and management agreement for condominiums. The plaintiff filed a class action with two counts: count…

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.


Opinion of the Court
THREADGILL, Judge.

THREADGILL, Judge.

The appellant challenges a final judgment for money damages in this suit for declaratory judgment and accounting. We affirm the declaratory judgment, reverse the award of damages, and remand for further proceedings.

The appellee, plaintiff below, filed a two-count class action complaint, asking in count one for a declaratory judgment to interpret a service and management agreement between the appellant condominium developer and the appellee unit owners and, in count two, for an accounting and damages relevant to alleged overcharges. Pursuant to stipulation, the two counts were bifurcated.

Following a trial on count one, the court entered a declaratory judgment interpreting the service and management agreement in favor of the appellee/plaintiff, retaining jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in count two and directing an accounting. On March 28, 1988, the trial court issued an order of clarification and again directed an accounting. On December 5,1988, the trial court entered an order directing that the accountings be filed within thirty days, and referring the issues of accounting and damages under count two to another division of the circuit court for final disposition. The parties submitted their respective account-ings to the trial court. On March 21, 1989, without further hearing or argument, the trial court entered an order entitled “final judgment as to count one” awarding the appellee damages of $24,926.98 for “maintenance fee overages,” which was one of the items of damages requested in count two.

The appellant argues that the entry of the final judgment for money damages on count one exceeds the relief sought by the plaintiff and the boundaries set by the trial court in its order bifurcating the issues. We agree. Supplemental relief based upon a declaratory decree is properly granted only after application for such relief by petition with reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing accorded to the adverse party. Garden Suburbs Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Pruitt, 156 Fla. 825, 24 So. 2d 898 (1946); § 86.061 Fla.Stat. (1987).

We treat this appeal as an appeal from a nonfinal order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). We find the declaratory judgment and order of clarification to be supported by competent substantial evidence and affirm those orders. We reverse the money damages awarded in the final judgment as to count one because count one contained no request for money damages and the award was thus premature. However, since the amount of the overcharges was determined by the trial court pursuant to the accountings submitted and the declaratory judgment on count one, and is supported by the evidence, we affirm the amount thereof. We remand the case for the trial court to consider all other issues in count two as to damages, together with the defenses raised by the appellant.

In light of this disposition, we need not consider the appellant’s other arguments on appeal.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Nikki Alvarez-Sowles v. Pasco Cnty., 386 So. 3d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
    …al relief in her petition for declaratory relief. On appeal, Pasco County does not contend that the Clerk erred in seeking supplemental relief by petition rather than by motion, nor do we believe that she did. See, e.g., Mac Assocs. v. LaMontagne, 556 So. 2d 460, 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (relying on the 1987 version of section 86.061, which mirrors the 2021 version of the statute, when stating that supplemental relief should be sought by petition). We understand that under certain circumstances when a statut…
  • Clerk v. Pasco Cnty. (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw