Justia Florida Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Buyers purchased two condominium units pursuant to contracts entered into in 2006. Buyers later contended that the contracts were voidable because Seller failed to maintain Buyers’ deposits in escrow in the manner required by the Condominium Act (the Act). The trial court dismissed the claims against Seller. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding (1) the contracts were voidable under the escrow provisions of the Act that were in force in 2006; and (2) the application of a 2010 amendment to the Act that was intended to have retroactive effect and that removed a statutory ground for determining that the contracts were voidable violated the constitutional prohibition on the impairment of vested contractual rights. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the 2010 amendment did not make a substantive change in the law; and (2) the contracts were not voidable under the statutory provisions in force in 2006.View "N. Carillon, LLC v. CRC 603, LLC" on Justia Law

The Developer of a subdivision of a larger condominium complex (Complex) and the Complex sued the condominium association (Association), alleging that the Association failed to pay the Developer and Complex related expenses for common areas after collecting fees and assessments collected from owners of the condominium units. The Developer subsequently filed an emergency motion for the appointment of a receiver over the Association in order to facilitate the collection of the fees and assessments and to perform a proper accounting. The trial court concluded that it lacked the statutory authority to appoint a receiver in this instance. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred as a matter of law because its right to appoint a receiver in this case was inherent in a court of equity, not a statutorily created right. The Supreme Court approved of the appellate court's decision, holding that a court's inherent equitable power to appoint a receiver over a non-profit condominium association like the Association was not limited to certain statutorily enumerated circumstances.View "Granada Lakes Villas Condo. Ass'n v. MetroDade Invs. Co." on Justia Law