Airport Plaza Ltd. Partnership v. United Nat. Bank of Miami
| Decision Date | 01 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | 89-2402,Nos. 89-1687,s. 89-1687 |
| Citation | 611 So.2d 1256 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2027 AIRPORT PLAZA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellant, v. UNITED NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, Milam Dairy Warehouse Associates Transam Distribution Services, Inc., Security Bonded Warehouse Inc., J. Kimpton Honey and Donald B. Hand, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kreeger & Kreeger, Miami, for appellant.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and A. Rodger Traynor, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
This case is before us to review a judgment entered after a nonjury trial on Airport Plaza's claim that Milam Dairy Warehouse, the seller in a real estate transaction, fraudulently induced the buyer, Airport Plaza Limited Partnership, into purchasing a warehouse complex. We affirm the trial court's finding that there was no fraud.
Airport Plaza, faced with foreclosure proceedings against it for defaulting on its mortgage payments to United National Bank, filed a third-party complaint against Milam Dairy Warehouse. The complaint sought rescission alleging that Milam Dairy had made fraudulent misrepresentations concerning two facts: (1) its selling agent's possession of a broker's license; and (2) the seller's knowledge regarding the anchor tenant's intentions of renewing its lease.
Airport Plaza originally obtained a summary judgment ordering rescission based on the licensing issue. We reversed that summary judgment in United Nat'l Bank v. Airport Plaza Ltd., 537 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA1988), on a holding that the absence of a broker's license was no basis for rescission. The case was then remanded for a determination of the remaining factual issues raised by Airport Plaza's allegations of fraud and securities violations. After a trial on remand, the court found that "the buyers were not deceived by anything the sellers said or did, or failed to say or do." Evidence in the record renders the finding unassailable.
First, the theory of fraud argued by Airport Plaza at trial was never raised in the pleadings. Both the third-party complaint and the amended third-party complaint set forth a theory of misrepresentation based on Milam's alleged knowledge that the anchor tenant would not be renewing its lease on the same terms after its present lease expired. Nonetheless, at trial, Airport Plaza's claim of fraud was grounded on the seller's alleged misrepresentations concerning the timeliness and amount of rent Milam Dairy was receiving from the anchor tenant prior to the sale. The issue of pre-sale rent collections was never raised in the pleadings and counsel for Milam Dairy vehemently objected to the newly-raised theory of fraud. Further, neither before nor after trial did Airport Plaza seek leave to amend its pleadings to conform to its new theory. We agree with Milam Dairy that it was improper to introduce at trial issues not previously raised in the pleadings. Amazon v. Davidson, 390 So.2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) ().
Second, the issue of pre-sale rent collections was irrelevant under the circumstances of this case. It is undisputed that after the sale, the anchor tenant paid all post-closing rents. Because full rent was paid after the closing, the amount of rent actually paid by the anchor tenant prior to the sale was a non-issue.
Finally, even if the issue of pre-sale rent collections had been properly before the court, there was substantial competent evidence to support the trial court's findings that the sellers made no material misrepresentations 1 concerning pre-sale rent collections. Specifically, the court found:
1. The anchor tenant's lease was not in default when the contract was entered into or at the time of the closing;
2. The buyer did not rely on any particular level of rent collections when signing the contract or at closing;
3. The sellers fully disclosed the actual rent collections from the buildings;
4. The variance between the rent stated in the leases and the actual total receipts was readily observable;
5. The buyers were not deceived by anything the sellers said or did, or failed to say or do.
It is undisputed that the prime tenant was behind in its rent prior to the sale, a fact that was easily ascertainable by Airport Plaza. However, at no time was the five-day notice of default clause ever invoked nor were the personal guarantors called on to pay any rent. Milam Dairy also presented testimony that documentation was available to the sophisticated appellant showing that revenues received were less than what was required to meet the lease obligation.
Other testimony at trial showed that the buyers anticipated a higher level of rent, in an improved market, than that which was established by the existing lease with the anchor tenant. When the existing lease expired, about eighteen months after the closing, the market for warehouse space had declined. In order to keep the tenant, Airport Plaza gave a new lease on a month-to-month basis at a lower rent. The record suggests, consistent with the trial judge's conclusion, that Airport Plaza's losses were occasioned by an unexpected collapse of the commercial real estate market and not by fraud on the part of Milam Dairy Warehouse.
After careful review of the extensive record we conclude that all of the judge's findings are supported by competent and substantial evidence, which precludes disturbance by this court. Lee v. Lee, 563 So.2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lewy v. Wohl, 561 So.2d 12 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Marrone v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 507 So.2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Affirmed.
In my view, the judgment below should be reversed as there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings. 1
Airport Plaza Limited Partnership [Airport Plaza] appealed from a final judgment of foreclosure and from a final judgment on its third party complaint for recision based upon fraudulent misrepresentation arising from the following transaction.
In April, 1983, Milam Dairy Warehouse Associates [Milam Dairy] entered into an agreement for the sale, leasing, and management of the Milam Dairy Warehouse in which Security Bonded Warehouse was the principal tenant. 2 The seller, the principal tenant, and the leasing-management company were all related entities. The sales agreement contained an express warranty that each tenant's lease was in full force and effect without modification or default, and that all of the representations in the agreement were correct. The lease for Security Bonded Warehouse provided that it would pay monthly rent of $34,430.83 per month which represented sixty-six percent of the total rent roll of the warehouse. At closing, the seller delivered a Trustee's Certificate, a Seller's Certificate, and a Blanket Estoppel and Consent which repeated the earlier warranties and acknowledged that the buyers were relying on the representations made in those documents.
Milam Dairy, which had retained a purchase money mortgage, assigned its interest in the mortgage to United National Bank. In September, 1985, the bank sued to foreclose, alleging that Airport Plaza had defaulted on its mortgage payments. The bank accelerated the debt and demanded the full amount of principal and interest owing.
Airport Plaza answered, raised the affirmative defense of estoppel by wrongful conduct, and filed a third party complaint against Milam Dairy for recision of the sale based upon the seller's fraudulent misrepresentations. 3 Airport Plaza alleged that Milam Dairy had intentionally misrepresented the amounts of rent that it had been receiving from its anchor tenant, Security Bonded Warehouse, that Airport Plaza had relied on those representations in purchasing the warehouse and that, because the rental receipts were significantly lower than represented, its income had been insufficient and it had not been able to make its mortgage payments. Airport Plaza also sought indemnification from the claims of the bank. The trial court granted Airport Plaza's motion for summary judgment on the fraud and securities claims. This court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding fraud and whether the "common enterprise" requirement of a security was met by the presence of more than one investor. United Nat'l Bank v. Airport Plaza Ltd., 537 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). 4 On remand, following a one-day bench trial, the court entered a judgment of foreclosure in favor of United National Bank and entered judgment against Airport Plaza on its third-party complaint against Milam Dairy. The trial court specifically found as follows:
1. The anchor tenant's lease was not in default when the contract was entered into or at the time of the closing;
2. The buyer did not rely on any particular level of rent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Bloedel
...("It is well-settled law in Florida that affirmative defenses not raised are waived."); Airport Plaza Ltd. v. United Nat'l Bank of Miami, 611 So.2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) ("It was improper to introduce at trial issues not previously raised in the pleadings."); cf. Bank of Am., Nat'l ......
-
Daskalopoulos v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp.
...DCA 2017) ("It is well-settled law in Florida that affirmative defenses not raised are waived."); Airport Plaza Ltd. v. United Nat'l Bank of Miami, 611 So.2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) ("[I]t was improper to introduce at trial issues not previously raised in the pleadings.").2 In sum, th......
-
Sirgutz v. Sirgutz
...the plaintiff judgment on a cause of action which she failed to raise in her pleadings. ..."); Airport Plaza Ltd. v. United Nat'l Bank of Miami , 611 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that it is "improper to introduce at trial issues not previously raised in the pleadings.").Eve......
-
Da Cunha v. Mann
...the relief was never pled, asserted, claimed in any other fashion, or a subject of the trial); Airport Plaza Ltd. P'ship v. United Nat'l Bank of Miami, 611 So.2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (holding that it is "improper to introduce at trial issues not previously raised in the pleadings")......