EMG JOCKEY CLUB LLC v. APEIRON MIAMI, LLC ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed February 9, 2022.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-1405
    Lower Tribunal Nos. 19-30442, 20-4888
    ________________
    EMG Jockey Club LLC,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Apeiron Miami, LLC,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
    Thomas, Judge.
    Ryan V. Kadyszewski, P.A., and Ryan V. Kadyszewski (Palm Beach
    Gardens), for appellant.
    Stok Kon + Braverman, and Robert A. Stok and David I. Rosenblatt
    (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
    Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Affirmed.       See    §489.128(2),     Fla.   Stat.   (2018)    (providing:
    “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, if a contract is
    rendered unenforceable under this section, no lien or bond claim shall exist
    in favor of the unlicensed contractor for any labor, services, or materials
    provided under the contract or any amendment thereto.”) (emphasis added.);
    Fernandez v. Fla. Nat’l Coll., Inc., 
    925 So. 2d 1096
    , 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
    (holding that “issues that are not pled in a complaint cannot be considered
    by the trial court at a summary judgment hearing”); Am. Title Ins. Co. v.
    Carter, 
    670 So. 2d 1115
     (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reversing summary judgment
    where trial court relied on estoppel theory not raised in the pleadings). See
    also Elison v. Goodman, 
    395 So. 2d 1201
    , 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (holding:
    “The judgment is affirmed, notwithstanding the filing of an affidavit in
    opposition to the summary judgment in which Mr. Elison directly contradicted
    his deposition testimony concerning the date of discovery, so as to bring it
    within the limitations period. The trial court properly struck this affidavit under
    the now well-settled rule, which had its genesis in Ellison v. Anderson, 
    74 So. 2d 680
     (Fla.1954), that a party is not permitted to alter a previously
    asserted position simply to avert summary judgment.”); McKean v. Kloeppel
    Hotels, Inc., 
    171 So. 2d 552
    , 556 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965) (“Paralleling those
    rules of law which impose upon the party moving for summary judgment the
    2
    above mentioned heavy burdens is the rule that the party opposing the
    motion will not be permitted to alter his position as occasion may indicate to
    be expedient in order to evade the consequences of his previous pleadings,
    admissions, affidavits, depositions or testimony.”)
    3