Paparone v. Lake Placid Holding Co.
| Decision Date | 21 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2214,82-2214 |
| Citation | 438 So.2d 155 |
| Parties | Elissa Landi PAPARONE, Appellant/Intervenor, v. LAKE PLACID HOLDING COMPANY, Appellee/Plaintiff, and Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Placid Lakes Corporation, and Magna Properties, Inc., Appellees/Defendants. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Gerald F. Richman and William C. Hearon of Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richman, Greer & Weil, P.A., Miami, for appellant/intervenor.
Edward W. Vogel, III, Julian Clarkson and C. Lawrence Stagg of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for appellee/plaintiff, Lake Placid Holding Co.
John W. Frost, II of Frost, Purcell & Lilly, P.A., Bartow, for appellees/defendants, Bankers Life & Cas. Co., Placid Lakes Corp., and Magna Properties, Inc.
This is an appeal from a final summary judgment entered against the intervenor/appellant, Elissa Landi Paparone (Paparone), in favor of the plaintiff/appellee, Lake Placid Holding Company (LPHC), and defendants/appellees, Bankers Life & Casualty Company, Placid Lakes Corporation, and Magna Properties, Inc. (collectively referred to as Bankers).
LPHC entered into an agreement to sell certain land to Gulfstream Citrus, Inc. This agreement was subsequently assigned to Placid Lakes Corporation, who intended to develop the property along with Magna Properties, Inc. Both corporations are related to Bankers. Bankers, in addition to making a large cash payment at closing, assumed several outstanding mortgages on the property and agreed to develop and sell the property. They entered into a profits participation agreement whereby they agreed to pay LPHC twenty-five percent of the pretax profits arising from said development and sale.
Paparone, former spouse of August Tobler who controlled LPHC, was the real estate broker in connection with the sale of the land. LPHC agreed to pay her a real estate commission in the amount of $20,000, plus a sum equal to fifty percent of any monies received by LPHC under the terms of the profits participation agreement.
When it became evident that Bankers was not going to fulfill its obligation of developing and selling the property, LPHC filed an action seeking damages, specific performance, and foreclosure of a vendor's lien. After lengthy negotiations, the parties agreed that the suit would be settled by LPHC reacquiring the property free and clear, by a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Paparone then intervened in the litigation and claimed entitlement to a portion of the damages from Bankers.
The deed in lieu of foreclosure was executed and recorded in accordance with the agreement, and LPHC dismissed its cause of action against Bankers. LPHC then filed a cross-claim against Paparone for declaratory relief. Paparone filed an answer, affirmative defenses, and a cross-claim. In one count of her complaint, she alleged that LPHC and Bankers, with full knowledge of her rights and motion to intervene, wilfully and maliciously conspired to defraud and defeat her rights by settling the litigation amongst themselves and in transferring the subject property in such a manner that would cloud the true nature of the settlement.
The parties filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted appellees' motions finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact because Paparone's claim for a brokerage commission was limited to a particular fund, i.e., profits to be received by LPHC under the profits participation agreement, and said fund never materialized. The court further held that since Paparone had no rights to an additional commission, there was no basis for her allegations that she was defrauded by the parties. Accordingly, Paparone's motion for summary judgment was denied, and her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone
...So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) [Paparone I] (directing the discharge of a lis pendens filed by Paparone), Paparone v. Lake Placid Holding Co., 438 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) [Paparone II] (reversing summary judgments entered in favor of Bankers Life & Casualty Company and Lake Placid Holdin......
-
Head v. Sorensen
...event that would cause the contract to terminate, summary judgment in favor of that party is improper. See Paparone v. Lake Placid Holding Co. , 438 So.2d 155, 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding that "if one prevents or renders impossible the performance or occurrence of a condition precedent,......
-
Sebsen Elec., LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 915
...to renew the agreement. A party cannot avoid this obligation by refusing to engage in negotiations."); Paparone v. Lake Placid Holding Co., 438 So. 2d 155, 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (one who prevents the performance of a condition precedent "cannot avail himself of its nonperformance."). Secon......
-
Paparone v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 85-2466
...Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (ordering discharge of lis pendens filed by Paparone), and Paparone v. Lake Placid Holding Co., 438 So.2d 155 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (reversing summary judgments for Bankers and Lake Placid Holding Company). The facts of the case are set out in ......