Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox-Florida Development Corp., KNOX-FLORIDA
| Decision Date | 24 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | KNOX-FLORIDA,No. 1871,1871 |
| Citation | 127 So. 2d 121 |
| Parties | AZALEA PARK UTILITIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v.DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Egerton K. Van Den Berg, Anderson, Rush, Ward & Dean, Orlando, for appellant.
Benjamin F. Smathers, Andrews & Smathers, Orlando, for appellee.
The appellant, defendant below, seeks by this appeal to reverse a final decree of the chancellor declaring the rights of the parties to a written contract and issuing an injunction against the Azalea Park Utilities, Inc.
In March, 1956, Huffman Brothers, Inc., was engaged in the development of a certain real estate project in Orange County, and entered into a written contract with the appellant utility company for sewer and water service.By the terms of their agreement, Huffman Brothers, Inc., was required to build at its own expense a sewer system and a water system and to connect these systems to the utility company's lines.In addition, purchasers from Huffman Brothers, Inc., would be assessed a monthly sewage charge which was payable to the appellant utility company.The agreement specifically provided that there would be no charge for tapping in to the defendant's water lines, but the contract was silent in regards to a tap-in charge for the sewer lines.In all, some thirty-five homes were connected to these lines between the time of the contract and the time of this controversy, and in none of these did the appellant attempt to levy a tap-in charge.
In July, 1957, with the agreement of all concerned, the appellee--Knox-Florida Development Corporation--succeeded to the rights and obligations of Huffman Brothers, Inc., under the original contract of March, 1956.About a month later, the appellant and appellee corporations agreed to extend the original contract to cover certain additional lands.This suit concerns the utility company's efforts to assess sewage tap-in charges on the additional property.On June 30, 1958, when the appellee was in the process of developing the additional land, the utility company served notice that a $200 tap-in charge would be assessed for connecting each house to the company's sewage lines.The appellee paid a total of $4500, under protest, into an escrow account and instituted this suit for a declaratory decree, a refund and an injunction.The chancellor found against the utility company and entered final decree accordingly--from which this appeal was taken.
The appellant sets forth four questions in its brief, but we do not believe that it is necessary to decide the last three as a decision on the first will dispose of the case.The appellant's first question is:
The contract of March, 1956, is quite detailed, containing provisions for monthly sewer charges; estimates of meter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Erectors v. Wilhoit Steel Erectors & R. Serv.
...Fla. 419, 182 So. 801, 802; Hurley v. Werley, Fla.Dist.Ct. App.1957, 203 So.2d 530, 537-538; Azalea Park Utilities v. Knox-Florida Develop. Corp., Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1961, 127 So.2d 121, 122-123. In construing such contractual language courts should attempt to give words and phrases the natura......
-
Sultan Chemists, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...for the Solution clearly shows that they did not intend the other products to be covered. See Azalea Park Utils., Inc. v. Knox-Florida Dev. Corp., 127 So.2d 121, 123 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1961) (noting that courts are reluctant to add terms to a contract by Finally, Sultan's assertion that the g......
-
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen
...American Realty, Inc. v. Bank of Palm Beach & Trust Co., 215 So.2d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox-Florida Development Corp., 127 So.2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). When contractual language is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot indulge in construction or interpret......
-
Home Development Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, 33242
...have said so. The fact that they did not, indicates an intention to exclude such a provision. See Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox-Florida Development Corp., Fla.App.1961, 127 So.2d 121; 12 Am.Jur., Contracts, Sec. 239. By reconstructing the contract of the parties to accord with what he......
-
Chapter 2-1 Default
...of an intention to exclude it rather than of an intention to include it." Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox-Florida Dev. Corp., 127 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); see also Home Dev. Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, 178 So.2d 113, 117 (Fla. 1965) (citing Azalea Park).[8] Nowlin v. Na......
-
Chapter 2-1 Default
...of an intention to exclude it rather than of an intention to include it." Azalea Park Utilities, Inc. v. Knox-Florida Dev. Corp., 127 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); see also Home Dev. Co. of St. Petersburg v. Bursani, 178 So. 2d 113, 117 (Fla. 1965) (citing Azalea Park).[8] Nowlin v. N......