Green Companies, Inc., of Florida v. Kendall Racquetball Investments, Ltd., 89-804
| Decision Date | 13 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-804,89-804 |
| Citation | 560 So.2d 1208 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D703 The GREEN COMPANIES, INC., OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. KENDALL RACQUETBALL INVESTMENTS, LTD., American Racquetball Corp., and Scandinavian Health & Fitness Centers, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kelly, Black, Black, Byrne, Craig & Beasley and Robert C. Byrne, Miami, and John G. Fletcher, South Miami, for appellant.
Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, Alan J. Kluger and Amy N. Dean, and Aronovitz & Jacobs, Miami, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and COPE, JJ.
The Green Companies, Inc., of Florida ("Green"), plaintiff below, appeals an adverse final judgment after a bench trial on claims for specific performance of a contract, injunctive relief, and abatement of a nuisance. We reverse.
Green is the developer of a commercial and office center known as Dadeland West, located in unincorporated Dade County, Florida. The tract has been divided into nine separate parcels, most of which are owned, and have been developed, by Green. Kendall Racquetball Investments, Ltd. is a Florida limited partnership which owns lot 4, on which it has built a health club. 1 Appellee Scandinavian Health & Fitness Centers, Inc. is the current tenant of Kendall Racquetball, and is doing business on the premises as Scandinavian Kendall Racquet Club.
At the outset of development, Dadeland West was subjected to a Declaration of Reciprocal Parking and Easement Agreement (Easement Agreement), which was in force at the time Kendall Racquetball acquired lot 4 in 1977. In 1978 the Easement Agreement was amended and has continued in force to the present time. The lawsuit below, and present appeal, involve an interpretation of that agreement.
The Easement Agreement provided that each lot owner, as well as their tenants and customers, would have rights of ingress and egress over all of the interior roads within Dadeland West. With respect to parking, the agreement required that each lot owner would provide parking spaces for the use of customers, tenants and employees, but also provided, in substance, that customers, licensees, and invitees would be able to park in any available parking space anywhere at Dadeland West.
The present dispute centers on the extent of Kendall's obligation 2 to provide parking spaces for the use of its customers. Paragraph 4D of the Easement Agreement provides in part:
The Developer has had prepared a Master Site Plan (The plan).... The parties agree that not without the prior written consent of all signatories hereto, future owners of any portion of the Park, their successors and assigns, no changes or alterations shall be made to the Plan or in the Park which differ or vary from the Plan (although in other aspects the Plan may be amended) as to ... (iv) any change in the ratio of parking spaces as shown on the Plan per building square footage as shown on the Plan.... The Common Areas in the Plan may be changed ... from time to time, ... (written consent always required in (i) through (vi) above) it being the intention of the parties that the easements herein granted shall be easements to use the Common Areas of the Park as such exists from time to time. However, each owner of property at the Park shall comply with all applicable zoning and similar laws, rules and regulations in connection with the number of parking spaces on their portion of the Park, and the parking spaces and facilities on the property of other owners at the Park shall not be counted in determining the number of spaces that each owner must provide. It is the intention of the parties that each owner of any portion of the Park will provide a sufficient number of parking spaces on his property in relation to the intended usage of such property and the requirements of law without relying upon parking facilities located elsewhere at the Park.
(Emphasis added).
In 1984 Kendall undertook interior renovations which had the effect of increasing the square footage of its building by approximately 4,000 square feet. 3 It is undisputed that Kendall did not obtain the written consent which was required by clause 4D(iv) of the Easement Agreement. 4
Subsequent to the completion of renovations, Kendall's health club business increased steadily. Green attempted to negotiate with Kendall about the need for additional parking, arguing that Kendall's provisions for parking were inadequate under the agreement, and that the peak usage by Kendall customers infringed on the parking areas of other tenants. Kendall contended that any parking difficulties at Dadeland West were attributable to Green's continuing development of the site and could not be blamed on Kendall.
In 1987 Green brought suit against Kendall, relying on a provision of the Easement Agreement which provides that any owner "shall have the right to bring an action for specific performance to enforce the terms and provisions of this Declaration ... including without limitation, the right of specific performance, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and the recovery of damages, including legal fees, appellate legal fees and costs...." In substance Green sought specific performance to require Kendall to provide additional parking; injunctive relief to restrain Kendall from using more than its parking allotment; and damages. 5 Green contended that it was entitled to damages for loss of tenants whose leases could not be renewed, or who could not be accepted as tenants in the first instance, because of a shortage of parking space.
The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. CSX Intermodal, Inc.
...King Corp., 798 F.Supp. 692, 700 (S.D.Fla.1992); First Nationwide Bank, 770 F.Supp. at 1542; The Green Companies, Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Invs., Ltd., 560 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Fernandez v. Vazquez, 397 So.2d 1171, 1173-1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Bo......
-
Barnes v. Burger King Corp.
...F.Supp. 1118, 1122 (M.D.Fla.1990), aff'd without opinion, 937 F.2d 619 (11th Cir. 1991); Green Cos., Inc. of Florida v. Kendall Racquetball Invs., Ltd., 560 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App.1990); Harrison Land Development, Inc. v. R and H Holding Co., Inc., 518 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th Dis......
-
Scheck v. Burger King Corp.
...F.Supp. 1118, 1122 (M.D.Fla.1990), aff'd without opinion, 937 F.2d 619 (11th Cir.1991); Green Cos., Inc. of Florida v. Kendall Racquetball Invs., Ltd., 560 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990); Harrison Land Dev. Inc. v. R and H Holding Co., Inc., 518 So.2d 353, 355 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 198......
-
Greenfield v. Manor Care, Inc.
...law, all contracts include the implied covenants of good faith and commercial reasonableness. See Green Cos., Inc. v. Kendall Racquetball Invs., Ltd., 560 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Kies v. Hollub, 450 So.2d 251, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1984)("a require......
-
Contract cases
...must be anchored to the performance of an express contractual obligation.”) 3. Green Co., Inc., of FL v. Kendall Racquetball Inv., LTD , 560 So.2d 1208, 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (“[I] t is fundamental that ‘[e]very contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its......
-
Contractual good faith: variations on the theme of expectations.
...the interpretation of a disputed provision of an easement in Green Companies, Inc. of Florida v. Kendall Racquetball Investments, Ltd., 560 So. 2d 1208 (Flat 3d DCA 1990).(15) Good faith under the common law can thus be an independent source of a right or an affirmative Code Decisions Anoth......