DEBARY PLANTATION UNIT 21 B HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEBARY PLANTATION COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., CITY OF DEBARY, AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, APPELLEES
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.
A dispute between a master homeowners association and a sub-association in a planned unit development regarding responsibility for maintaining the surface water/storm water management system (SWMS). The trial court granted summary judgment for the master association, but the appellate court reversed, finding ambiguity in the governing documents precluded summary adjudication.
The trial court's summary judgment was improper because ambiguity exists within the master declaration and between the two declarations regarding which association is responsible for maintaining the SWMS. The case must proceed to trial rather than being resolved on summary judgment.
[1] A case is not ripe for summary judgment when ambiguity exists within governing documents regarding the allocation of responsibility for maintenance and repair.
[2] Ambiguity within a master declaration and between master and sub-association declarations concerning responsibility for a surface water/storm water management system requ…
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“where there is ambiguity within the master declaration, and between the two declarations, as to which association is responsible to maintain the SWMS within the subdivisions, the case should not have been summarily decided”
Establishes that ambiguity in governing documents precludes summary judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDebary Plantation Unit 21 B Homeowners Association (sub-association) and Debary Plantation Community Association (master association) are part of a pl…
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 Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal involves a dispute between a master homeowner’s association and a sub-association in a planned unit development over which association is responsible to pay for repairs to a portion of that development’s surface water/storm water management system “SWMS” located within the sub-association’s area. The trial court granted summary judgment for the master association, finding that each association was responsible to maintain and repair those portions of the SWMS within its own common areas. The sub-association appeals, arguing first, that the case was not ripe for summary judgment and second, that the master association was exclusively responsible to maintain the entire SWMS throughout the development. Reviewing the matter de novo, see McInerney v. Klovstad, 935 So.2d 529, 530 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), we reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings. Because there is ambiguity within the master declaration, and between the two declarations, as to which association is responsible to maintain the SWMS within the subdivisions, the case should not have been summarily decided. See, e.g., S & T Anchor *106 age, Inc. v. Lewis, 575 So.2d 696, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (“[W]here the terms of the instrument are ambiguous, casting doubt upon the intent of the parties, this intent must be determined by the trier of fact, and is not to be determined upon a motion for summary judgment.” (quoting Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, 252 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971))); see also OBS Co. v. Pace Constr. Corp., 558 So.2d 404, 406 (Fla.1990) (finding that although subcontract was clear and unambiguous, patent ambiguity resulted when conflicting provisions of general contract, which were incorporated into subcontract, were considered).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LAWSON, C.J., COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- OBS Co., Inc. v. Pace Constr. Corp., 558 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 1990)
- Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. In-Sink-Erator, 252 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- S & T Anchorage, Inc. v. Lewis, 575 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- McINERNEY v. Klovstad, 935 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)