GARDEN STATE HOLDINGS, LLC, ETC.
v.
SHAZBOP, LLC, ETC., ET AL.
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 warranty deed unambiguously excluded the subject tax deed parcel from the conveyance to Garden State, making summary judgment appropriate and Garden State not entitled to notice of the tax deed sale.
[1] A contract is ambiguous only when it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way, and a true ambiguity does not exist merely because a contract can possibly be int…
[2] Extrinsic evidence should not be used to introduce a contractual ambiguity where none exists when the entire conveyance examined in context yields only one reasonable int…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A contract is ambiguous when it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way.”
Court's statement of the legal standard for contract ambiguity, citing Nationstar Mortg. Co. v. Levine, 216 So. 3d 711, 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).
Garden State Holdings claimed ownership of property in Monroe County, Florida, based on a September 13, 2016 warranty deed from Grassy Key Land Compan…
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 Extrinsic Evidence In Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 7, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-2014 Lower Tribunal No. 21-CA159-M ________________
Garden State Holdings, LLC, etc., Appellant,
vs.
Shazbop, LLC, etc., et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge.
Law Office of Paul A. Krasker, P.A., and Marshall J. Osofsky (West Palm Beach), for appellant.
Lydecker LLP, and Forrest L. Andrews and Debbie Maken, for appellee Shazbop, LLC.
Before MILLER, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
BOKOR, J.
2
In these consolidated appeals,1 Garden State Holdings, LLC, challenges a summary judgment and a related cost and fee award entered against it in an action to vacate a tax deed sale. Garden State argues that it was the owner of the property subject to the tax deed sale and that the sale was invalid because it was not provided proper notice prior to the sale of the property to Shazbop, LLC. Alternatively, Garden State claims ambiguity in the property description rendering summary judgment inappropriate. Because the relevant title documents unambiguously reflect that Garden State was not the owner of the subject property, we affirm.
Garden State’s claim to the tax deed property derived from a September 13, 2016 warranty deed conveying certain property in Monroe County, Florida, to Garden State from the Grassy Key Land Company, Inc. This deed begins by describing the subject property as “All of Government Lot1, Section 26, Township 65 South, Range 33 East, on Grassy Key, Monroe County, Florida, Except the Following Described Tracts of Land.” The deed then includes one additional line stating, in parentheses, “Less & Except the Following Described Parcels” before giving detailed metes and
In opposition to summary judgment, Garden State claimed that the deed either conveyed the subject parcel to it or contained ambiguity precluding entry of summary judgment as to whether the deed included the parcel subject to the tax deed sale. Both parties also proffered competing surveyor maps and affidavits disputing whether the subject parcel was encompassed by the conveyance, though the parties did not dispute that the metes and bounds descriptions of the parcels within the deed were accurate and that the surveys reflected the property descriptions. So the only remaining dispute concerned the effect of the conveyance language in the deed. Specifically, did the deed include the parcel later subject to the tax deed sale, for which Garden State did not receive notice? The trial court found that the deed unambiguously did not convey the tax deed parcel to Garden State. Garden State was therefore not entitled to notice of the tax deed sale. This appeal followed.
Summary judgment is typically improper when a contract is ambiguous. See, e.g., Nationstar Mortg. Co. v. Levine, 216 So. 3d 711, 714
Affirmed.
5
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Arrow Prop. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 357 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Am. Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Zbigniew Scheller, 462 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Nationstar Mortg. Co. v. Levine, 216 So. 3d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)