FLORIDA LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
SAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., 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.
Florida Laundry Services appealed a trial court judgment finding that Sage Condominium Association was excused from performing a lease agreement under the doctrine of impracticability. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and the award of attorney's fees to Sage, rejecting all of the appellant's arguments on appeal.
The trial court properly found that Sage was excused from performance under the doctrine of impracticability, which is recognized under Florida law and extends beyond strict impossibility to include impracticability due to unreasonable expense. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying and considering expert testimony. The trial court properly awarded attorney's fees and costs to Sage as the prevailing party.
[1] A party's duty to perform under a contract may be discharged if performance becomes impracticable without the party's fault due to an event the non-occurrence of which wa…
[2] The doctrine of impracticability is not limited to strict impossibility but includes impracticability due to unreasonable expense.
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“where after a contract is made, a party's performance is made impracticable without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render that performance is discharged, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrary”
Establishes the legal standard for the impracticability defense under the Restatement of Contracts, which Florida has adopted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFlorida Laundry Services and Sage Condominium Association entered into a lease agreement. After the contract was made, an event occurred that rendered…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Expert Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
In this consolidated appeal, Florida Laundry Services, Inc. appeals a final judgment entered in favor of defendant, Sage Condominium Association (“Sage”) following a three-day nonjury trial, as well as a subsequent final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of Sage.
Upon our review of the record on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s final judgment, which was supported by competent, substantial evidence and which properly found, upon the evidence presented, that Sage was excused from performance of the lease agreement by the doctrine of impracticability. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261 (Am. Law Inst.1981) (providing that “[wjhere after a contract is made, a party’s performance is made impracticable without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made, his duty to render that performance is discharged, unless the language or the circumstances indicate the contrar/’). Florida law has embraced this defense, calling it a “cousin” of the defense of impossibility, Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So.3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and explicitly recognizes that “[t]he doctrine is not limited to strict impossibility, but includes ‘impracticability due to unreasonable expense.” Hopfenspirger v. West, 949 So.2d 1050, 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
We reject the other claims raised on appeal of the final judgment, including the assertion that the trial court erred in determining Sage’s expert witness to be qualified to offer expert opinions and erred in considering such expert testimony. “It is well established that the acceptance or rejection of expert testimony is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such decision will not be overturned on appeal absent a showing of *69abuse of discretion.” Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So.2d 1226, 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). See also Ramirez v. State, 542 So.2d 352, 355 (Fla.1989) (holding that the “determination of a witness’s qualifications to express an expert opinion is peculiarly within the discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed absent a clear showing of error”). Under section 90.702, Florida Statutes (2015), a witness may be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.... ” (Emphasis added.) See also Vega v. State Farm, Mut. Auto., 45 So.3d 43, 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). An expert is not required to be licensed in the State of Florida in order to be qualified to offer expert testimony. Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A, 629 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Lee County Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Lowe, 344 So.2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Finally, we affirm the final order awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Sage as the prevailing party below. The trial court correctly applied the law in determining Sage’s entitlement and properly exercised its discretion in determining the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded.
Affirmed.
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)…fenses is foreseeability at the inception of the lease.”). Where a business risk was foreseeable at the inception of the parties’ agreement, “there exists an inference that the risk was either allocated by Laundry Servs., Inc. v. Sage Condo. Ass’n, 193 So. 3d 68, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Hopfenspirger v. West, 949 So. 2d 1050, 1054 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)). “In contrast, frustration of purpose arises when one of the parties finds that the purposes for which he or she bargained, and which purposes were kno…
-
Fitness Int'l, LLC v. 93 Flrpt, LLC (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…ter a contract is made, a party's performance is made impracticable without his fault by the occurrence of an event the non-occurrence of which was a basic assumption on which the contract was made." Fla. Laundry Servs., Inc. v. Sage Condo. Ass'n, 193 So. 3d 68, 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261). Florida law has "embraced" this doctrine as a defense to a breach of contract claim and "explicitly recognizes that '[it] is not limited to strict impossibility, but includes…
-
Infinity Auto Ins. Co. v. MD Royal Grp., LLC (S.D. Fla. 2024)…’x 702 (11th Cir. 2012). The parties also dispute whether MD Royal had notice of the Claim and Underlying Lawsuit and whether it had the capacity to cooperate in the first place. Nowak, citing to Fla. Laundry Servs. Inc. v. Sage Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 193 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), argues that performance under a contract can be excused by impracticability or impossibility of performance. [ECF No. 118 ¶ 30]. Infinity distinguishes Nowak's caselaw and argues that Nowak has failed to provide support for the a…
Authorities Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 542 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1989)
- Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- LEE Cnty. Elec. Co-Operative, Inc. v. Lowe, 344 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Sheriff OF Orange Cnty. v. Boultbee, 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Hofrichter & Quiat, P.A., 629 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Vega v. State Farm Mut. Auto., 45 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Hopfenspirger v. West, 949 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)