De Anza Corp. v. Hollywood Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., No. 83-916

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HERSEY
• Citation: 443 So.2d 462
• Parties: DE ANZA CORPORATION, Appellant, v. HOLLYWOOD ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.
• Decision Date: 11 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-916

Page 462

443 So.2d 462 DE ANZA CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
HOLLYWOOD ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. No. 83-916. District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District. Jan. 11, 1984.

Page 463

Edward S. Jaffry and William L. Grossenbacher of Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry & Horne, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jerold Hart of Law Offices of Jerold Hart, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellee.

HERSEY, Judge.

We are asked to review an order permitting parties to intervene in litigation eight months after rendition of final judgment. We reverse.

In May 1981, Hollywood Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (HEHA) filed a complaint against appellant De Anza. Following several motions by appellant a settlement stipulation was entered into by HEHA and appellant on December 31, 1981, and reduced to final judgment on April 27, 1982.

In pertinent part, the settlement stipulation provided that the residents of De Anza's mobile home park designated HEHA as their agent for the purpose of entering into the stipulation, and that the designation of HEHA as agent was solely for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of obtaining signatures of the tenants. Additionally, the stipulation provided as follows:

5.) ....

(b) That commencing from the date of the execution of this stipulation, and for a period of thirty (30) days, but not to exceed January 30, 1982, Defendant will offer to each tenant a lease for a term of three (3) years commencing on January 1, 1982, said lease to be in the same form and containing all of the terms and conditions as found in the lease presently offered to such tenants by Defendant as same is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." Plaintiff specifically recognizes that said lease provides for yearly increases in rent to be paid to Defendant in a percentage amount not in excess of the amount of the reported Consumer Price Index as released by the United States Department of Labor, and also including, among other things, utility and tax assessment pass throughs.

Beginning approximately eight months after the entry of final judgment, a varying number of individual tenants sought enforcement of the final judgment and settlement stipulation (specifically paragraph 5b). Additionally, the individual tenants petitioned the court for leave to intervene and filed a motion to stay the enforcement of new leases raising rents. Appellant admits that the individuals are bound by the stipulation, but takes the position that since the final judgment had already been rendered and thus there was no pending litigation, it was too late for the individual tenants to intervene. Furthermore, appellant claims that there was an unreasonable delay in proceeding to enforce the stipulation and thus the individual tenants are estopped from now claiming non-performance. Appellee/intervenors argue that they are parties...