THE DECOPLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
DECO PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS, INC., ETC., ET AL., 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.
Decoplage Condominium Association appeals a summary judgment for declaratory relief that construed a commercial lease in favor of Deco Properties & Investments, Inc. The court reversed and remanded because the lease language was ambiguous and susceptible to different interpretations, precluding summary judgment as a matter of law.
The lease language is ambiguous because it is susceptible to different interpretations by the parties. Since a trial court may interpret a contract as a matter of law only when it is totally unambiguous or when ambiguity may be resolved by undisputed parol evidence, and since the parties dispute both the lease meaning and their intent, genuine issues of material fact exist that must be resolved by the trier of fact, precluding summary judgment.
[1] A contractual term susceptible to different interpretations is ambiguous.
[2] A trial court may interpret a contract as a matter of law only when it is totally unambiguous or when any ambiguity may be resolved by undisputed parol evidence of the pa…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 well settled that a contractual term which is susceptible to different interpretations is ambiguous.”
Establishes the legal standard for contract ambiguity; the court found the lease susceptible to different interpretations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute over the duration of a commercial lease for a unit at the Decoplage Condominium. Decoplage asserts the lease created a rig…
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 Right Of First Refusal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Decoplage Condominium Association, Inc. (“Decoplage”) appeals a final summary judgment for declaratory relief which construed a commercial lease in favor of Deco Properties & Investments, Inc. (“Deco Properties”) and Sonia Vera. We reverse and remand.1
This case involves a dispute over the duration of a lease for a commercial unit at the Decoplage Condominium. Decoplage asserts the lease created a right of first refusal which would not violate the Declaration of Condominium’s three-year restriction on commercial leases. Deco Properties contends the lease grants a unilateral option to extend the lease for an additional three years, but that it was not intended to violate the Declaration.
Although both parties claim that the lease is unambiguous, clearly each has a different interpretation of the rights the lease language creates. It is well settled that a contractual term which is susceptible to different interpretations is ambiguous. Friedman v. Va. Metal Prods. Corp., 56 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1952); Gannon Constr. & Design Co. v. McKeon, 697 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
Moreover, a trial court may interpret a contract as a matter of law only when it is totally unambiguous or when any ambiguity may be resolved by undisputed parol evidence of the parties’ intent. Land O’Sun Realty Ltd. v. REWJB Gas Invs., 685 So. 2d 870, 872 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Here, the parties not only dispute the meaning of the lease language, they also disagree on their intent when entering into the lease. Therefore, genuine issues of material fact exist which must be resolved by the trier of fact and preclude summary judgment. See Birwelco-Montenay, Inc. v. Infilco Degremont, Inc., 827 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, the final summary judgment entered below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
. We sua sponte raised the issue of this Court's jurisdiction to review the trial court's judgment because a counterclaim remains pending below. Upon consideration of the parties' responses and a review of the record, we conclude that this Court has jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc., 934 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Life Care Ponte Vedra, Inc. v. H.K. WU, 162 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…126 So. 3d 1215, 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). However, a contract may be interpreted as a matter of law when the ambiguity can be resolved by undisputed parol evidence of the, parties’ intent. Decoplage Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Deco Props. & Invs., Inc., 971 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Here, we agree with the trial court that the Contract was ambiguous as to the meaning of occupancy, but believe that the court should have considered extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent.4 For instance, there was evidence t…
Authorities Cited
- Arrow Prop. Ins. Adjusters, Inc. v. People's Tr. Ins. Co., 357 So. 3d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Land O'Sun Realty Ltd. v. Rewjb GAS Invs., 685 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Lenett v. World Vacation Travel, 827 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc., 934 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Gannon Constr. & Design Co. v. McKEON, 697 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)