LEGACY PLACE APARTMENT HOMES, LLC., APPELLANT,
v.
PGA GATEWAY, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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.
Legacy Place appealed a judgment in favor of PGA Gateway on a breach of contract claim arising from a post-closing agreement. The court reversed, finding that PGA Gateway materially breached the contract by failing to timely complete construction of RCA Boulevard when time was of the essence, and that Legacy Place was entitled to share in impact fee credits that the trial court had denied.
The court held that PGA Gateway materially breached the contract by failing to meet the construction deadline when time was of the essence, and that substantial performance is unavailable for such a breach unless the time provision was waived. The court also held that the connection fee credit constitutes an impact fee under the plain language of the agreement and that Legacy Place was entitled to share in it.
[1] A failure to complete construction by a contractual deadline constitutes a material breach when time is of the essence, precluding the doctrine of substantial performance…
[2] A time is of the essence provision in a contract may be waived by a party.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Because time was "of the essence" in the post-closing agreement, appellee's failure to complete construction of RCA Boulevard by the deadline in the contract constituted a material breach.”
Establishes that PGA Gateway's failure to meet the construction deadline was a material breach, not merely a minor deviation subject to substantial performance doctrine.
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 entered into a post-closing agreement regarding construction obligations and impact fee sharing. PGA Gateway failed to complete constructi…
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 Impact Fees cases and more on FLexlaw
We reverse the final judgment in favor of appellee on its breach of contract claim. First, we find that the record does not support appellee’s claims of substantial compliance. Because time was “of the essence” in the post-closing agreement, ap-pellee’s failure to complete construction of RCA Boulevard by the deadline in the contract constituted a material breach. Sublime, Inc. v. Boardman’s Inc., 849 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The doctrine of substantial performance is generally unavailable where a party has materially breached the terms of the agreement. Nat’l Constructors, Inc. v. Ellenberg, 681 So.2d 791, 793 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). A time is of the essence provision may nevertheless be waived. Horovitz v. Levine, 755 So.2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Because the trial court did not consider appellee’s waiver arguments, we remand for the trial court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether appellant waived its right to demand compliance with the time provision. The trial court may rely on the record established at trial or may take additional evidence at its discretion.
We also reverse the trial court’s finding that appellant was not entitled to the Seacoast connection fee credit. We review de novo the trial court’s interpretation of the post-closing agreement. See Detroit Diesel Corp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 So.3d 618, 620 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The agreement is unambiguous, and the plain language of the agreement states that the parties “shall share all impact fee credits for the Shared Cost Work.” See Lazzaro v. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc., 48 So.3d 974, 975 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that unambiguous contract language “must be afforded its plain meaning”). A connection fee is generally considered to be a type of impact fee charged by utility companies for initiating new service. See, e.g., Save Our Septic Sys. Comm., Inc. v. Sarasota Cnty., 957 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); City of Zephyrhills v. Wood, 831 So.2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Thus, we conclude that the *645connection fee credit received from the utility company was an “impact fee credit,” and appellant was entitled to a share of that credit. On remand, any judgment in favor of appellee must be reduced by $141,797.15, the amount of the credit to which appellant was entitled under the post-closing agreement.
Reversed and remanded.
WARNER, POLEN and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…Life Ins. Co. v. Adams, 828 F.Supp. 379, 388 (D.S.C.1993))). It is, in essence, the opposite of a material breach of contract that would excuse the nonbreaching party from its obligations. See Legacy Place Apartment Homes, LLC v. PGA Gateway, Ltd., 65 So. 3d 644, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“The doctrine of substantial performance is generally unavailable where a party has materially breached the terms of an agreement.”); 15 Williston on Contracts, § 44:55 at 231. Indeed, Florida courts have sometimes evaluate…
-
Lopez v. Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 313 So. 3d 230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…So. 2d 142, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)). Substantial compliance is “the opposite of a material breach of contract.” Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Milam, 177 So. 3d 7, 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (citing Legacy Place Apartment Homes, LLC v. PGA Gateway, Ltd., 65 So. 3d 644, 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)). “[F]or there to be a total forfeiture of coverage under a homeowner’s insurance policy for failure to comply with [conditions precedent to suit], the insured’s breach must be material.” Am. Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada,…
-
Sobel v. Sobel (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Sublime, Inc. v. Boardman's Inc., 849 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Nat'l Constructors, Inc. v. Ellenberg, 681 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Detroit Diesel Corp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., 18 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Lazzaro v. Miller & Solomon Gen. Contractors, Inc., 48 So. 3d 974 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Save OUR Septic Sys. Comm., Inc. v. Sarasota Cnty., 957 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Horovitz v. Levine, 755 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Salem Lefils v. State, 831 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- City OF Zephyrhills v. Wood, 831 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)