This case involved condominium unit owners who sued their management association seeking a declaratory judgment on whether the association could refinance the purchase money mortgage on its manager's apartment (Unit 101) without obtaining consent from all unit owners. The trial court granted summary judgment for the association, ruling that Unit 101 was association property rather than a common element and that the association could refinance it by resolution. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the declaration of condominium defined Unit 101 as a living unit owned by the association, the bylaws specifically authorized the association to cover mortgage costs for the manager's apartment, and Florida statute permitted the association to purchase and mortgage units absent any prohibition in the governing documents.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between buyers and a seller of adjacent parcels of real property in Florida. After the written sales closed, the seller claimed an oral agreement existed for the buyers to reconvey a 20-foot strip of land along one boundary in exchange for another strip, and he sent estoppel letters to the buyers' lender conditioning satisfaction of a mortgage on that reconveyance, which briefly blocked refinancing. The buyers sued for slander of title, and the seller counterclaimed for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement. The trial court ordered specific performance based on a purported novation but denied the slander claim. On appeal, the court reversed the specific performance order, holding that the original oral agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, had merged into the written contracts, and could not support a novation; it affirmed the denial of the slander claim because the estoppel letters were not false or malicious and caused no lasting damages.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of an amended complaint filed by Delia & Wilson, Inc. and William Delia against Robert L. Wilson and Viola Wilson. The trial court had dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court determined that a dismissal with prejudice is improper without first giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the pleading, unless it is clear that no amendment could state a valid claim, as established in prior precedent. The court therefore reversed the order and remanded the case to allow the appellants to file another amended complaint.

procedure