MODERN PHARMACY, LLC
v.
J&J 111 ASSOCIATES, INC.
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.
Where a contract is clear, complete, and unambiguous, summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law because no genuine dispute exists as to the parties' intent or the meaning of the contractual language.
[1] Where a contract is clear, complete, and unambiguous, summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law because no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the me…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is a 'well-established rule that where the parties to a contract have selected the language contained therein, and where that language is clear and unambiguous, the courts are without authority to rewrite the terms of the agreement to give them a meaning other than the one expressed.'”
The court cited All-Dixie Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Moffatt to establish the foundational principle that unambiguous contract language cannot be judicially rewritten.
Modern Pharmacy, LLC appealed from a summary judgment entered in favor of J&J 111 Associates, Inc. in a contract dispute in Miami-Dade County Circuit …
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 Unambiguous Contract Language cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 5, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 25-2325
Lower Tribunal No. 20-27588-CA-01
Modern Pharmacy, LLC, Appellant,
vs.
J&J 111 Associates, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.
ROSENBAUM INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, P.A., and Michael Rosenbaum; Jeffery P. Shapiro, P.A., and Jeffery P. Shapiro, for appellant.
EGOZI & BENNETT, P.A., and Bernard L. Egozi and Branden J. Stillman, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See All-Dixie Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Moffatt, 212 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968) (It is a “well-established rule that where the parties to a contract have selected the language contained therein, and where that language is clear and unambiguous, the courts are without authority to rewrite the terms of the agreement to give them a meaning other than the one expressed.”); accord Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So. 3d 206, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“If a contract is clear, complete and unambiguous, there is no need for judicial construction."); see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a) (“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); Star Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc., 346 So. 3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 (1986)) (“An issue of fact is 'genuine' . . . when a reasonable jury could potentially return a verdict in favor of the non-moving party [and] 'material' when it may affect the outcome of the case under the applicable substantive law."); see Pan Am. W., Ltd. v. Cardinal Com. Dev., LLC, 50 So. 3d 68, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Where a contractual provision is unambiguous, no issue of fact is presented as to the meaning of the language or the parties' intent, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); accord Dirico v. Redland Ests., Inc., 154
So. 3d 355, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Absent ambiguity, there were no genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment here.").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986)
- Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So. 3d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- PAN Am. W., Ltd. v. Cardinal Commercial Dev., LLC, 50 So. 3d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Star Cas. Ins. Co. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc., 346 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)