Soncoast Community Church v. Travis Boating

• Decision Date: 21 May 2008
• Docket Number: No. 4D07-2584.,4D07-2584.
• Parties: SONCOAST COMMUNITY CHURCH OF BOCA RATON, INC., Appellant, v. TRAVIS BOATING CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

981 So.2d 654

SONCOAST COMMUNITY CHURCH OF BOCA RATON, INC., Appellant, v. TRAVIS BOATING CENTER OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellee.

No. 4D07-2584.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 21, 2008.

Peter A. Miller & Associates, P.A., Miami, and Robert S. Glazier of Law Office of Robert S. Glazier, Miami, for appellant.

William R. Boeringer and Leigh McMillan Minoux of Hayden Milliken Boeringer & Irick, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

POLEN, J.

Appellant, Soncoast Community Church of Boca Raton, appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Appellee Travis Boating Center. The trial court found that Soncoast could not seek contribution for a personal injury settlement from Travis as Travis was not included in the general release signed as part of the settlement. The trial court found that Travis was not included in the definition of "Defendants" in the release. We disagree with the trial court's grant of summary judgment and reverse.

The standard of review of the entry of summary judgment is de novo. The law is well settled in Florida that a party moving for summary judgment must show conclusively the absence of any genuine issue of material fact, and the court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom a summary judgment is sought. A summary judgment should not be granted unless the facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law.

Craven v. TRG-Boynton Beach, Ltd., 925 So.2d 476, 479-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (internal citations omitted).

The general release between Soncoast and the plaintiffs listed specific individuals and entities and also gave a general definition including: "Any and all other persons, firms, corporations and legal entities of any type whatsoever." At the end of the settlement agreement and general release, Paragraph 24, was a "Cooperation with Contribution Claims" clause which stated:

The PLAINTIFFS acknowledge and understand that the DEFENDANTS have filed Third-Party Complaints against Travis Boating Center of Florida, Inc., for contribution. The PLAINTIFFS hereby agree that they will fully cooperate with the DEFENDANTS in the DEFENDANTS' prosecution of said contribution claims against Travis Boating Center of Florida, Inc., and or any other persons, firms or other entities from whom DEFENDANTS may seek contribution.

Travis argued this indicated he was not included in the definition of "Defendants."

In this case, the trial court's ruling was based on the language found in the settlement agreement and general release. In order for Soncoast to litigate a contribution action against Travis, Travis must be covered by the general release. See § 768.31(2)(d), Fla. Stat. The trial court agreed with Travis's argument and found Travis was not included in the general definition of "DEFENDANTS" found in the settlement agreement and general release.

A trial court's interpretation of a contract is reviewable by this court under a de novo standard of review provided the language is clear and unambiguous and free of conflicting inferences. In such case of ambiguity, the existence of the ambiguity is a question of law, and the ambiguity must be resolved as a question of fact.

No. Star Beauty Salon, Inc. v. Artzt, 821 So.2d 356, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (internal citations omitted). "[W]hen the terms of a written instrument are disputed and...