Greater New York Corp. v. Cenvill Miami Beach Corp., s. 92-1275

• Decision Date: 22 June 1993
• Docket Number: 92-1573,Nos. 92-1275,s. 92-1275
• Citation: 620 So.2d 1068
• Parties: 18 Fla. L. Week. D1479 The GREATER NEW YORK CORP., etc., et al., Appellants, v. CENVILL MIAMI BEACH CORP., etc., et al., Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1068

620 So.2d 1068

18 Fla. L. Week. D1479

The GREATER NEW YORK CORP., etc., et al., Appellants, v. CENVILL MIAMI BEACH CORP., etc., et al., Appellees.

Nos. 92-1275, 92-1573.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Third District.

June 22, 1993.

Buchanan, Ingersoll and Jeremy A. Koss, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Brown, Clark & Walters and Glenn N. Siegel and Stuart Jay Levine, Sarasota, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, The Greater New York Corporation (GNYC) appeals the final judgment entered in favor of Oceania Joint Venture (Oceania) in a suit filed by Oceania for breach of certain contracts for the sale of condominium units. Ronald Miceli appeals the trial court's award of attorneys fees and costs to Oceania. We affirm as to both.

Oceania was the developer of Oceania Tower I, a high rise condominium located in North Miami Beach. In March 1988, Oceania agreed to sell condominium unit OS-16 to Charles Trentacosta (contract I). Thereafter, Trentacosta assigned his right, title, and interest in contract I to Ronald Miceli, the president of GNYC. Pursuant to the terms of contract I, Miceli deposited $65,890 with Oceania's escrow agent. In January 1990, Oceania agreed to sell unit OS-11 to GNYC (contract II). Pursuant to the terms of contract II, GNYC deposited $57,000 with the escrow agent. Approximately two weeks later, Oceania and Miceli, as president of GNYC, executed an addendum to contract I which stated, "[i]t is hereby agreed and understood that purchaser [Miceli] shall take title in the name of The Greater New York Corporation."

Initially, a closing date was set for May 31, 1990. A dispute arose between the parties as to whether certain conditions for closing had been met. They attempted various settlement negotiations which, ultimately, broke down. According to GNYC, the parties had reached an oral agreement to terminate or modify contracts I and II, and had executed a termination/modification agreement. Oceania denied that such an agreement had been reached or executed. Thereafter, GNYC sued Oceania and the escrow agent for breach of the alleged agreement and for conversion of the deposits. Asserting, inter alia, that Miceli was an indispensable party to GNYC's suit, Oceania filed a third-party complaint against Miceli and counterclaimed against GNYC for breaches of the original purchase contracts, and sought a declaratory judgment as to 1) which party had breached the original purchase contracts; 2) which party was entitled to the deposit monies and liquidated damages; and 3) which party was entitled to attorneys fees and costs. After a bench trial, the court entered final judgment against GNYC, finding that all parties had agreed that any termination or modification agreement would be reduced to a writing and signed by the parties in order to be binding, and that there was no meeting of the minds as to termination or modification of the original purchase contracts. As to Oceania's counterclaim and third-pa...