All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Federal District Court Cases |
District Court of Appeal of Florida |
2014-07 |
-
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed July 23, 2014. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D13-2516 Lower Tribunal No. 12-14114 ________________ Docassist, LLC, et al., Appellants, vs. Rolando Barberis, etc., et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beth Bloom, Judge. Tripp Scott and Paul O. Lopez and Jeffrey M. Fauer (Fort Lauderdale); Bruce S. Rogow and Tara A. Campion (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Ricardo A. Arce, for appellees. Before LAGOA, SALTER and EMAS, JJ. EMAS, J. Appellant Docassist, LLC, (“Docassist”), appeals from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment and entry of summary judgment in favor of Appellees, based upon a determination that Docassist failed to properly admit a number of new members to the company. We affirm, and reject Docassist’s argument that an August 29, 2011 Letter Agreement serves as evidence of the Board of Managers’ consent to admit new members to Docassist. All parties agree that the Letter Agreement is unambiguous. The express language of the Letter Agreement neither names the new members nor specifies adjustments to the company’s equity resulting from new member capital investment. The Letter Agreement, by its terms, evinces an intent only to raise new capital for the company. Given the unambiguous nature of the Letter Agreement, Docassist may not rely on extrinsic evidence to support its contentions. See Real Estate Value Co., Inc. v. Carnival Corp.,
92 So. 3d 255, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). We also affirm the trial court’s determination that the subsequent actions taken by Docassist, through its October 25, 2011 and December 7, 2011 amendments to its Operating Agreement, were invalid. The October 25th Amendment is invalid because the Board of Managers did not properly consent to it pursuant to the terms of the company’s Operating Agreement. As a consequence, the subsequent December 7th Amendment (which necessarily was premised upon the validity of the October 25th Amendment) is likewise invalid. 2 Affirmed. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 3D13-2516
Citation Numbers: 143 So. 3d 1054, 2014 WL 3620450, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11198
Judges: Lagoa, Salter, Emas
Filed Date: 7/23/2014
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024