Acquisition Trust Company, LLC v. Laurel Pinebrook, LLC ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
    MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
    IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    OF FLORIDA
    SECOND DISTRICT
    ACQUISITION TRUST COMPANY, LLC,               )
    )
    Appellant,                      )
    )
    v.                                            )      Case No. 2D16-3325
    )
    LAUREL PINEBROOK, LLC, and                    )
    REAL SUB, LLC, and PUBLIX SUPER               )
    MARKETS, INC.,                                )
    )
    Appellees.                      )
    )
    Opinion filed July 7, 2017.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota
    County; Rochelle Curley, Judge.
    Alex P. Rosenthal and Amanda Jassem
    Jones of Rosenthal Law Group, Weston,
    for Appellant.
    Hunter G. Norton and Steven J. Chase of
    Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP,
    Sarasota, for Appellee Laurel Pinebrook,
    LLC.
    Kristin Hatcher-Bolin and Mark N. Miller of
    GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, for
    Appellees Real Sub, LLC and Publix Super
    Markets, Inc.
    LUCAS, Judge.
    This case concerns a dispute over a purchase and sale agreement of
    commercial property, which was subject to a prior, recorded right of first refusal.
    Challenging the manner in which that right of first refusal was exercised, the frustrated
    prospective purchaser of the property, Acquisition Trust Company, LLC ("Acquisition
    Trust"), filed a complaint in the circuit court of Sarasota County alleging rescission,
    specific performance, and breach of contract. The circuit court dismissed Acquisition
    Trust's complaint with prejudice.1 Appellees concede that the circuit court's dismissals
    with prejudice was improper since Acquisition Trust had never been afforded an
    opportunity to amend its complaint. We agree. See Strader v. Carpenters Crest
    Owners Ass'n, Inc., 
    968 So. 2d 621
    , 622 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("Generally, a trial court
    must allow a litigant the opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissing its suit with
    prejudice unless it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended so as to state a cause
    of action." (quoting Albrecht v. Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 
    481 So. 2d 555
    , 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)); Kapley v. Borchers, 
    714 So. 2d 1217
    , 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA
    1998) ("A dismissal with prejudice should not be ordered without giving the party
    offering the pleading an opportunity to amend unless it appears that the privilege to
    amend has been abused or it is clear that the pleading cannot be amended to state a
    1
    Appellees argued in their motions to dismiss that Acquisition Trust had no
    standing to dispute how their transaction for the sale of the subject property was
    consummated once Publix Supermarkets, Inc., gave notice that it would exercise its
    right of first refusal over the property. At the conclusion of the hearing on the motion to
    dismiss, the circuit court took the matter under advisement and then issued the orders
    now on appeal, orders which were silent as to any basis or rationale for the dismissals
    of Acquisition Trust's complaint.
    -2-
    cause of action."). Accordingly, we reverse the orders of the circuit court and remand
    this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    Our reversal necessarily affords Acquisition Trust the opportunity to file an
    amended complaint, a pleading that, it appears from the record and the representations
    made to us during oral argument, will likely be filed and will likely differ in some respects
    from the dismissed complaint. And obviously, we have no way of knowing in advance
    the manner in which Appellees will choose to respond to such an amended pleading
    when or if it is served. The parties urge us to nevertheless render an opinion on the
    merits of the substantive legal controversy that was argued in the prior motion to
    dismiss the original complaint. In this case, though, we must respectfully decline their
    invitation. Cf. State v. Barati, 
    150 So. 3d 810
    , 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) ("Under the
    Florida Constitution, only the Florida Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to issue
    advisory opinions." (first citing art. V, § 3(b)(10), Fla. Const.; and then citing Fla. House
    of Representatives v. League of Women Voters, 
    118 So. 3d 198
    , 207 (Fla. 2013)). We
    express no opinion, then, on the substantive issues raised below and in this appeal but
    must leave that to the parties and the circuit court to develop more fully following
    remand.
    Reversed and remanded.
    MORRIS, J., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Case 2D16-3325

Judges: Lucas, Morris, James

Filed Date: 7/7/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024