Docassist, LLC v. Barberis, Etc. , 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 11198 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •        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