MARATHON SUNSETS, INC., ETC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
GREG COLDIRON, ET AL., APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
Marathon Sunsets, Inc. and neighbors appealed a trial court decision regarding deed restrictions on property in Marathon, Florida. The appellate court affirmed the finding that a Tiki Hut bar did not violate restaurant-use restrictions but reversed the injunction ordering reconstruction of a gate that had been denied a permit by local authorities under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Tiki Hut bar does not violate the restaurant-use restriction because substantial, competent evidence supports that determination. However, the court reversed the injunction ordering Marathon Sunsets to reconstruct the gate, as the doctrine of impossibility of performance applies when a permit for the gate was categorically denied by local authorities.
[1] A contractual obligation is discharged under the doctrine of impossibility of performance when performance is impossible, the party did not assume the risk of impossibili…
[2] A trial court errs in ordering a party to perform a contractual obligation that cannot be performed without a necessary permit that has been categorically denied by gover…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Under the doctrine of impossibility of performance or frustration of purpose, a party is discharged from performing a contractual obligation which is impossible to perform and the party neither assumed the risk of impossibility nor could have acted to prevent the event rendering the performance impossible.”
Establishes the legal standard for the impossibility of performance doctrine that governs the gate reconstruction issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarathon Sunsets, Inc. owned property in Marathon, Florida subject to deed restrictions limiting use to a restaurant defined as deriving at least 50% …
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 Deed Restrictions cases and more on FLexlaw
Dissatisfied with the results obtained below in an action brought by neighbors to enforce certain deed restrictions imposed on property in Marathon, Florida, both parties appeal. The property owner, Marathon Sunsets, Inc., challenges the trial court’s injunction directing it to construct and maintain a traffic control device on Kyle Way East. Greg and Michelle Coldi-ron ask this Court to overturn the trial court’s decision that the Tiki Hut bar, added to the restaurant site, does not violate the deed restriction authorizing use solely as a restaurant, defined as “a food service establishment deriving no less than fifty percent of its revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages.” Because substantial, competent evidence supports the trial court’s ruling as to the restaurant only restriction, we affirm without further discussion. We reverse, however, the portion of the final judgment ordering Marathon Sunsets to reconstruct the previously dismantled gate on Kyle Way East.
Under the doctrine of impossibility of performance or frustration of purpose, a party is discharged from performing a contractual obligation which is impossible to perform and the party neither assumed the risk of impossibility nor could have acted to prevent the event rendering the performance impossible. See, e.g., Shore Inv. Co. v. Hotel Trinidad, Inc., 158 Fla. 682, 29 So.2d 696 (1947); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So.3d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Leon Cnty. v. Gluesenkamp, 873 So.2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Am. Aviation, Inc. v. Aero-Flight Serv., Inc., 712 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Evidence presented below clearly demonstrated Marathon Sunsets sought permission to reconstruct the gate to Kyle Way East after it was damaged and taken down as a result of certain sewer work in the area. A permit for the gate was categorically denied by the governing authorities. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of impossibility of performance applies, and the trial court erred in ordering Marathon Sunsets to do that which it may not do without the necessary permit.
Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the final judgment ordering construction of the gate, and affirm in all other respects.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vereit Real Est., L.P. v. Fitness Int'l, LLC, 365 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…rged from performing a contractual obligation which is impossible to perform and the party neither assumed the risk of impossibility nor could have acted to prevent the event rendering the performance impossible.” Marathon Sunsets, Inc. v. Coldiron, 189 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). The closely related doctrine of impracticability of performance differs in that it includes a party’s inability to perform “due to unreasonable expense.” Fla. central importance placed upon the enforceability of contracts…
-
Fitness Int'l, LLC v. 93 Flrpt, LLC (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…rty "from performing a contractual obligation which is impossible to perform and the party neither assumed the risk of impossibility nor could have acted to prevent the event rendering the performance impossible." Marathon Sunsets, Inc. v. Coldiron, 189 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). But "courts are reluctant to excuse performance that is not impossible but merely inconvenient, profitless, and expensive." Valencia Ctr., Inc. v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 464 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Once…
-
Magma Global, LLC v. NHT SP, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2023)…e an express contract addressed the pertinent subject Magma cannot assert a claim for unjust enrichment. Magma opposes (Doc. 6) the motion. Magma premises Counts I and III on the impossibility of the contract. Mara- thon Sunsets, Inc. v. Coldiron, 189 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), explains that a party may assert that a contract was impossible or that the purpose of the contract was frustrated if performance of the contract was impossible and if the party “neither assumed the risk of impossibility nor…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shore Inv. Co. v. Hotel Trinidad, Inc., 158 Fla. 682 (Fla. 1947)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Am. Aviation, Inc. v. Aero-Flight Serv., Inc., 712 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Leon Cnty. v. G.J. Gluesenkamp, Jr., 873 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)