PALM LAKE PARTNERS II LLC. v. C & C POWERLINE, INC.
Decision Date | 21 June 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 1D09-2444.,1D09-2444. |
Parties | PALM LAKE PARTNERS II, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Falcon Lake Apartments, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. C & C POWERLINE, INC., a Florida corporation, Peter Del Col, individually, John M. Marchi, individually, Roy B. Simpson, individually and City of Jacksonville, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
George M. McClure and Susan S. Bloodworth of McClure Bloodworth, P.L., St. Augustine, for Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
John R. Stiefel, Jr. of Holbrook, Akel, Cold, Stiefel & Ray, P.A., Jacksonville, for C & C Powerline, Inc.; James W. Middleton, A. Graham Allen and Cristine M. Russell of Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville for Peter Del Col, John Marchi & Roy Simpson; and Richard A. Mullaney, General Counsel and Dylan T. Reingold, Assistant General Counsel, Jacksonville, for City of Jacksonville.
Palm Lake Partners, II, LLC (Palm Lake) and Falcon Lake Apartments, LLC (Falcon Lake) appeal the judgment entered against them in an action C and C Powerline, Inc. (C & C) brought claiming (as a purported third-party beneficiary) breach of Palm Lake's contract to purchase real property (Purchase Agreement) from Peter Del Col, John Marchi, and Roy Simpson (Sellers). Sellers (who originally intervened as plaintiffs below, but were subsequently named as defendants in C & C's amended complaint, and then crossclaimed) cross appeal (against Palm Lake and Falcon Lake) the denial of the full extent of the award of specific performance they sought-the road the trial court ordered built would not adequately accommodate all utilities, they claim-and (against the City) denial of their claim for declaratory relief.
On the main appeal, we reverse the judgment requiring Palm Lake and Falcon Lake to build a road-which also disposes of the specific performance prong of Sellers' cross-appeal-but remand with directions that the trial court award Sellers liquidated damages as specified in the easement and road construction agreement between Sellers and Palm Lake. On the cross-appeal otherwise, we affirm: The City argues persuasively that Sellers are not entitled to bypass administrative remedies in order to pursue judicial remedies, even declaratory judgment. For whatever reason, C & C never stated a claim against Sellers below and seeks no relief against Sellers here.
Sellers owned a 55-acre parcel in Jacksonville that Palm Lake Drive bisects, as well as a strip of property abutting the 55-acre parcel to the north. C & C operates a business on 30 acres still farther north, and relies on Palm Lake Drive for access to its own property. When C & C's owner, Chuck Chitty, learned a comprehensive plan amendment-to change the land use designation of Sellers' parcel from industrial to residential-was under consideration, he spoke to Sellers' representative, Barry Hurtz. Mr. Chitty was concerned that new residents might complain about truck traffic. Eventually, Messrs. Chitty and Hurtz verbally agreed that C & C would not, in exchange for construction of an alternate access road to C & C's property, object to any comprehensive plan amendment reclassifying Sellers' property as residential.
On May 1, 2005, Sellers and Palm Lake signed the Purchase Agreement, which (wholly unbeknownst to C & C at the time) provided: Paragraph 11 of the agreement provided, in part:
Access Road: The parties acknowledge that it is necessary to construct an Access Road at the northern boundary of the site to provide alternate access for property owners located north of the Property. Buyer agrees to construct the Access Road pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the parties.... Seller shall pay for one half the cost of the Access Road but no more than Three Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00). Seller's portion of the cost of the Access Road shall be deducted from Purchase Price. Buyer shall pay for the balance of the cost of the Access Road. In the event the Final Bids exceed[ ] $900,000, Buyer has the right to terminate this Agreement and receive a return of its deposit. Buyer agrees to bond off and commence construction of the Access Road prior to occupancy of any units on the Property.
Anticipating construction of apartments on the parcel, an application was filed with the City of Jacksonville (City) for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and, on August 23, 2005, the City enacted Ordinance 2005-740-E, which rezoned the parcel as a PUD, “subject to the written description dated August 11, 2005.” 1 The rezoning was also explicitly subject to the following condition: “The development shall proceed in accordance with the Traffic Engineering Memorandum dated August 4, 2005 and attached hereto as Exhibit 4, or as otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineering Division and the Planning and Development Department.” 2 As it had promised, C & C did not object to the rezoning that Ordinance 2005-740-E effected.
On February 28, 2006, before access road plans and specifications-much less construction permits or any contract-had been approved, Sellers conveyed the parcel to Palm Lake on the terms set out in the Purchase Agreement as amended by a written grant of easement for a future access road (the easement and road construction agreement), which provided: 3
Only after closing did the developers (Palm Lake and Falcon Lake) obtain engineering plans for the access road and FDOT approve a connection to Main Street. Soon thereafter, however, it became apparent that a portion of the access road was proposed to run along a section of Noah Road 4 on ground that guy wires steadying Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) power lines already occupied. JEA advised all concerned that relocating the guy wires would cost some $800,000, and would take a long time to engineer, and that guy wires might soon be unnecessary altogether because of changes JEA contemplated making in the power grid system.
In February of 2007, the developers discussed with a city councilman the PUD condition requiring construction of an access road as an alternative to Palm Lake Drive. After a later meeting between the developers and certain City officials, the City officials construed the PUD condition as not only not requiring the developers to construct the access road but as not permitting them to do so, either, and a memorandum was placed in the Palm Lake PUD file to the effect that construction of the access road would violate Ordinance 2005-740-E. Palm Lake and Falcon Lake subsequently informed the Sellers and C & C-which learned only in February of 2007 that Sellers had sold the parcel-that the access road would not be constructed.
Apprised of the situation, C & C filed the complaint that began the proceedings below, asserting doubt as to its rights under the ordinance and requesting declaratory judgment. C & C also alleged that it was a third-party beneficiary of the Purchase Agreement between Sellers and Palm Lake, and that Palm Lake had breached the agreement. C & C sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief, including a ban on leasing residential units until an access road was constructed. 5
Sellers, who had initially intervened as parties plaintiff, filed cross-claims against Palm Lake, Falcon Lake and the City, after C & C named them as defendants in an amended complaint. Sellers also sought a declaration of their rights under the ordinance as to the City; and under the Purchase Agreement (as modified by the easement and road construction agreement) regarding Palm Lake's and Falcon Lake's asserted duty either to build the access road or to return $350,000 to Sellers and to relinquish the easement Sellers had conveyed for construction of an access road.
Eventually, the trial court granted partial summary judgment, ruling that C & C was a third-party beneficiary of the Purchase Agreement's access road provisions. In a supplemental order, the trial court set out its rationale: that, by not opposing the rezoning, C & C had materially changed its position in justifiable reliance on Sellers' promise to construct an access roadand that C & C's justifiable reliance precluded any purported modification of the Purchase Agreement that would permit the access road to go unbuilt. On this basis, 6 the trial court concluded that the subsequent easement and road construction agreement was ineffective because Sellers and Palm Lake had entered into it without C & C's consent. In its final judgment, the trial court ruled that damages would not afford C & C an adequate remedy for the failure to build an access road (providing an alternative to Palm Lake Drive), and that the equitable remedy of specific performance was appropriate.
On factual findings the parties do not dispute, we review the learned trial judge's interpretation of the contract documents de novo. “The trial court's interpretation of the contract is a matter of law subject to a de novo standard of review.” I...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
TRANCHANT v. The RITZ CARLTON HOTEL Co. LLC.
...Under Florida law, consideration can be established by performance or a promise to perform. See Palm Lake Partners II, LLC v. C&C Powerline, Inc., 38 So. 3d 844, 851 n. 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); see also Murry v. Zynyx Mktg. Commc'ns, Inc., 774 So. 2d 714, 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(noting that "......
-
Am. Coach Lines Of Orlando Inc v. North Am. Bus Indus. Inc
...consideration under Florida law is established by performance or a promise to perform. See Palm Lake Partners II, LLC v. C & C Powerline, Inc., 38 So. 3d 844, 851 n.10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("[A] promise, no matter how slight, qualifies as consideration, " so long as "the promisor agrees to d......
-
O'brien v. Mcmahon
...under any legal obligation to make or keep her as a beneficiary under the policy. See generally Palm Lake Partners II, LLC v. C & C Powerline, Inc., 38 So. 3d 844, 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("A 'promisor and a promisee can by agreement create a duty to a beneficiary which cannot be varied wit......
-
Ioselev v. Schilling, Case No. 3:10-cv-1091-J-34MCR
...and accordingly, the Court has no discretion to order specific performance in this action. See Palm Lake Partners II, LLC v. C & C Powerline, Inc., 38 So. 3d 844, 851 n.9 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("The granting of specific performance rests largely in the discretion of the [judge] but the right ......