ATLANTIC BEACH MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE BREAKERS OF FORT WALTON BEACH CONDOMINIUMS, INC., 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.
Atlantic Beach Management, Inc. (ABM) appealed a judgment awarding damages and injunctive relief to a condominium association. The appellate court affirmed the injunction requiring removal of a satellite dish but reversed the damages award, finding that ABM's contractual duty to collect assessments had been modified by agreement before the arrearages accrued.
The appellate court affirmed the injunctive relief ordering removal of the satellite dish within 45 days, finding no abuse of discretion. However, the court reversed the damage award of $93,954.45, holding that ABM's contractual obligation to collect assessments was modified by agreement as of January 20, 1988, and arrearages for Mary Bull's units did not accrue until December 1988 or later, after the payment collection duty had been transferred to the Association.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in granting injunctive relief when the evidence supports the order.
[2] A contractual duty to collect assessments may be modified by subsequent agreement of the parties directing unit owners to pay directly to the obligee.
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“ABM's contractual duty to collect assessments and payments was modified, by agreement of both parties, at least as early as January 20, 1988, when ABM and the Association signed a letter directing all condominium unit owners to make their payments directly to the Association instead of ABM beginning on March 1, 1988.”
Establishes that the parties' written agreement modified ABM's contractual obligation to collect payments, which was critical to reversing the damages award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceABM contracted with The Breakers Condominiums in 1982 to manage the condominium and collect assessments from unit owners. George Bull was president an…
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 Contract Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant, Atlantic Beach Management, Inc. (ABM) appeals a final judgment entered against it in an action for damages and injunctive relief filed by appellee, The Breakers of Fort Walton Beach Condominiums, Inc. (The Association). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The record on appeal indicates that a contract was entered into in 1982 between ABM and The Association, whereby ABM agreed to manage The Breakers Condominiums in Fort Walton Beach. Under paragraph 8.1 of the contract, ABM was required to collect all assessments and payments made by condominium unit owners, and was authorized by the Association to take any action which might be necessary to effectuate the collection.
At the time the contract was entered into, George Bull was President and sole shareholder of both ABM and of The Breakers of Fort Walton Beach, Florida, Inc. (the developer of the condominium project). In addition, Bull was manager of the affairs of his wife, Mary Bull, who owned 16 condominium units at The Breakers.
In September of 1989, the Association filed an amended complaint against ABM, seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of a satellite dish owned by ABM from the condominium grounds, and seeking damages as a result of ABM’s alleged failure to collect past due condominium fees and assessments from both Mary Bull and from the developer corporation. After hearing evidence at trial, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the Association on both points, ordering ABM to remove the satellite dish from the condominium property within 45 days, and assessing damages in the amount of $93,954.45.
We affirm the grant of injunctive relief, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We reverse the award of damages, however, since the evidence established that ABM’s contractual duty to collect assessments and payments was modified, by agreement of both parties, at least as early as January 20, 1988, when ABM and the. Association signed a letter directing all condominium unit owners to make their payments directly to the Association instead of ABM beginning on March 1, 1988. The record also indicates, by way of two claims of lien filed against the units owned by Mary Bull, that the arrearages on those units did not begin to accrue until at least December of 1988. The record contains no indication of when the alleged arrearages of the developer corporation began to accrue. Therefore, even assuming ABM could have been held responsible under the contract for the unpaid assessments, there is no showing by the Association that ABM failed to collect those assessments while it was still contractually bound to do so. .We therefore reverse that portion of the final judgment awarding the Association damages in the amount of $93,-954.45.
We find no merit in appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in sustaining appellee’s objection to a portion of George Bulls trial testimony, and in allowing appellee to impeach another portion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED.
ZEHMER and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C. v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc., 145 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…1997). Contracting parties are at liberty to address any issue they see fit, including the question of whether their agreement may be modified at all, and, if so, how. See, e.g., Atl. Beach Mgmt., Inc. v. Breakers of Fort Walton Beach Condos., Inc., 589 So. 2d 315, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). When contracting parties elect to adopt a term or condition, including one addressing the question of modification, it is not the province of a court to second guess the wisdom of their bargain, or to relieve either party f…
-
Fiddlesticks Country Club, Inc. v. Shaw, 363 So. 3d 1177 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)…act: contracting parties are at liberty to address any issue as they see fit, including the question of whether their agreement may be modified at all, and if so, how. See, e.g., Atl. Beach Mgmt., Inc. v. Breakers of Fort Walton Beach Condos., Inc., 589 So. 2d 315, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As a result, “[w]hen contracting parties elect to adopt a term or condition, including one addressing the question of modification, it is not the province of a court to second guess the wisdom of their bargain, or to reliev…