Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 20, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1751
Lower Tribunal No. 16-2954
________________
Vice City Marina LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
The Four Ambassadors Master Association, Inc., etc., et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
Thomas, Judge.
Mauro Law, P.A., and C. Cory Mauro (Boca Raton), for appellant.
Bales Sommers & Klein, P.A., and Jason Klein, for appellees.
Before SCALES, LOBREE and BOKOR, JJ.
SCALES, J.
Vice City Marina LLC (“Developer”), the plaintiff below, appeals a July
24, 2019 final judgment entered in favor of The Four Ambassadors Master
Association, Inc. and The Four Ambassadors Association, Inc.
(“Associations”), the defendants below, on Developer’s two-count
declaratory judgment action. For the following reasons, we affirm the entry
of final judgment as to count I; however, we reverse entry of final judgment
as to count II and remand with directions that the claim be dismissed,
because the issue was mooted during the lower court proceedings.
I. RELEVANT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Four Ambassadors Condominium
In June 1981, the Four Ambassadors Condominium was created to
convert an existing hotel – consisting of four hotel towers and a separate
ballroom facility – into a residential condominium development. The
developer of the condominium has changed numerous times over the last
forty years, largely via a series of limited assignments of rights with respect
to the ballroom facility (“Unit 5-100”) only. Specifically, the limited
assignments conveyed the rights as the developer of the condominium and
the declarant under the Declaration of Covenants, but only insofar as the
assignor’s right as developer and declarant “affect, govern and apply” to Unit
5-100. 1
1
In 2005, through a prior developer, The Four Ambassadors Association,
Inc. acquired title to the common elements and received an assignment of
all other rights as developer and declarant for the condominium.
2
Until Developer received its assignment of rights in January 2016
(“January 2016 Assignment”), the ownership of Unit 5-100 had always been
deeded to the new developer along with the limited assignment of rights for
Unit 5-100. Developer did not acquire ownership of Unit 5-100 when it
received the January 2016 Assignment because, in March 2009, appellee
The Four Ambassadors Association, Inc. acquired title to Unit 5-100 after a
prior developer lost ownership of Unit 5-100 through foreclosure
proceedings.
Prior to the January 2016 Assignment, on August 19, 2013, The Four
Ambassadors Association, Inc. amended the Declaration of Condominium
to return Unit 5-100 to the common elements of the condominium (“August
2013 Amendment”).
B. The Instant Litigation
After Developer acquired the January 2016 Assignment, Developer
and Associations disagreed over whether, pursuant to the Declaration of
Condominium and Declaration of Covenants, Developer had any right to
convert Unit 5-100 into a condominium tower and/or further develop the
parcel of property on which Unit 5-100 is located (“Phase Five Parcel”). On
February 5, 2016, Developer filed the instant action in the Miami-Dade
County Circuit Court seeking, among other things, declaratory relief
3
decreeing that: (i) Developer had the right to develop the Phase Five Parcel
(count I); and (ii) the August 2013 Amendment to the Declaration of
Condominium was invalid (count II). 2
On July 24, 2019, after holding a two-day bench trial, the trial court
entered final judgment in favor of Associations on both counts. Developer
timely appeals this July 24, 2019 final judgment.
II. ANALYSIS 3
A. Count I – Developer’s Right to Develop Phase Five of the
Condominium
Count I of the complaint sought a declaration that Developer “is
empowered as ‘Developer’ and ‘Declarant’ to develop Phase Five, in
accordance with the terms of the Declaration of Condominium and
Declaration of Covenants.” The trial court determined that Developer does
not have the right to develop the Phase Five Parcel for two reasons: (i) the
2
While Developer’s complaint contained other counts, Developer challenges
only the trial court’s adjudications of counts I and II.
3
The trial court’s construction of the limited assignments and the January
2016 Assignment presents a question of law that we review de novo. JF &
LN, LLC v. Royal Oldsmobile-GMC Trucks Co.,
292 So. 3d 500, 505 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2020). We also review de novo the trial court’s interpretations of the
Declaration of Condominium and the Declaration of Covenants. Courvoisier
Courts, LLC v. Courvoisier Courts Condo. Ass’n,
105 So. 3d 579, 580 (Fla.
3d DCA 2012).
4
January 2016 Assignment purported to give Developer overly expansive
rights as developer and declarant that did not exist by virtue of the prior
limited assignments; and (ii) Developer “does not own Unit 5-100 or any
other property located in the Phase Five Parcel,” which the court determined
was a prerequisite to developing the property. We agree with both findings.
1. The January 2016 Assignment
Beginning with the May 1, 1990 “Limited Assignment of Rights as
Developer” between former developers Southern Skyway Property, Inc. and
U.S. Properties, Inc., the developer’s rights with respect to the condominium
have been limited to those “rights as Developer and Declarant [that] affect,
govern and apply to Unit 5-100, of the Condominium.” The limited
assignment expressly excluded “any and all other rights that Assignor may
have as the Developer of any other property in the Condominium and as the
Developer and Declarant with respect to any other property in the Four
Ambassadors Project” including “with respect to the ‘Common Properties’ . .
. of the Project.”
The two subsequent limited assignments – in 2003, between U.S.
Properties, Inc. and Brickell Bay Entertainment Company, and in 2004,
between Brickell Bay Entertainment Company and Brickell Yacht Club at
Four Ambassadors, L.L.C. – were similarly limited. This, of course, was
5
appropriate because an assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor,
receiving only those rights that are transferred. See Lauren Kyle Holdings,
Inc. v. Heath-Peterson Constr. Corp.,
864 So. 2d 55, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
A successor developer cannot assign any more rights than were assigned
to it by a predecessor developer.
The January 2016 Assignment to Developer is written more broadly,
purporting to convey “Assignor’s rights as Developer of the Condominium
under the Declaration of Condominium, . . . and as Declarant under the
Declaration of Covenants, and including, but not limited to, Assignor’s rights
as Developer and Declarant as same affect, govern and apply to the
Property.” Nevertheless, as it must, the January 2016 Assignment
recognizes that the “rights specifically received by [Developer] . . . , [are]
pursuant to the Limited Assignment of Rights as Developer and prior
Assignments thereto transferring and assigning rights as Developer to each
of the constituent Assignor entities.”
We agree with the trial court that, pursuant to the series of limited
assignments, Developer’s right as developer and declarant are limited to
those that affect, govern and apply to Unit 5-100 only. The Four
Ambassadors Condominium Association, Inc. is both the current owner of
6
Unit 5-100 and the holder of all other rights as developer and declarant with
respect to the condominium.
2. The Declaration of Condominium and the Declaration of Covenants
The Four Ambassadors Condominium was created to convert an
existing hotel into a residential condominium. The Declaration of
Condominium gives the developer the authority to convert the four existing
towers into residential units in Phases One through Four, and to develop Unit
5-100 in Phase Five. Specifically, section 22.4 of the Declaration of
Condominium provides that “Phase Five will contain one (1) Unit,[4] if added,
all subject to increase and decrease as set forth in Section 9.2 hereof.”
Section 9.2 of the Declaration of Condominium permits the developer to
make “alterations, additions, or improvements” to “Developer-owned Units”
without obtaining prior consent.
In February 1990, prior developer Southern Skyway Property, Inc.
timely exercised the right to develop Phase Five and acquired title to Unit 5-
100. The Declaration of Condominium amendment adding Phase Five
expressly provided that “Developer hereby submits the fee title to [Unit 5-
4
Section 22.2 of the Declaration of Condominium provides the legal
description, survey and plot plan for the single unit added during Phase Five.
It is not disputed that Unit 5-100 (the ballroom facility) is the single unit
referenced in section 22.4.
7
100] . . . to condominium ownership in accordance with and subject to the
provisions of the Declaration, and declares that said property hereafter be
part of the Condominium Property of the Condominium.” This was consistent
with section 22 of the Declaration of Covenants, which provides that “[i]f a
Parcel shall be added to the Condominium as a phase thereof . . . such
Parcel shall thereupon cease to be a Parcel and shall become a
condominium or a portion of a condominium.”
The trial court concluded that once Unit 5-100 was added to the
condominium the Phase Five Parcel ceased to be a “Parcel.” Consequently,
pursuant to section 22.4 of the Declaration of Condominium, as restricted by
section 9.2, Developer must own Unit 5-100 – the lone unit permitted to be
created during Phase Five – if Developer wants to develop it. We agree.
See Lenzi v. Regency Tower Ass’n, Inc.,
250 So. 3d 103, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA
2018) (recognizing that, when construing condominium declarations, “the
goal is to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text of the entire
agreement to accomplish its stated meaning and purpose’” (quoting Murley
v. Wiedamann,
25 So. 3d 27, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Taylor v.
Taylor,
1 So. 3d 348, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009))). 5 Pursuant to the Declaration
5
None of the other provisions of the Declaration of Condominium cited by
Developer override or conflict with section 22.4’s requirement that section
9.2 will govern any “increase or decrease” to Phase Five (i.e., Unit 5-100).
8
of Condominium and the Declaration of Covenants, Developer cannot
develop Unit 5-100 because Developer does not own it.
We, therefore, affirm entry of judgment in favor of Associations on
count I.
B. Count II – Invalidation of the August 2013 Amendment
Count II of the complaint sought a declaration that the August 2013
Amendment was invalid. In the July 24, 2019 final judgment, the trial court
determined that count II was moot “because Associations have nullified and
revoked the August 19, 2013 Amendment.” Nevertheless, the trial court
entered judgment in favor of Associations on count II because, according to
the court, Developer lacked standing to challenge the August 2013
Amendment and Developer otherwise had no right to develop the Phase Five
Parcel.
Having properly determined that this issue was moot, the trial court,
rather than proceeding to adjudicate count II, should have dismissed count
II for lack of an actual controversy. See Paul Jacquin & Sons, Inc. v. City of
Port St. Lucie,
69 So. 3d 306, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“An issue is moot
when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination
Such “increase or decrease” (i.e., specified additions, alterations or
improvements) is contingent on the developer owning Unit 5-100.
9
can have no actual effect. A case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual
controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist. A moot case generally
will be dismissed.”) (citations omitted); Schweickert v. Citrus Cnty. Fla. Bd.,
193 So. 3d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (same). Accordingly, we reverse
that portion of the July 24, 2019 final judgment entering judgment in favor of
Associations on count II, and remand with instructions that the claim be
dismissed.
III. CONCLUSION
After a de novo review, we affirm that portion of the July 24, 2019 final
judgment determining that Developer does not have the right to develop the
Phase Five Parcel (count I). Because count II of Developer’s complaint was
rendered moot by the Associations’ revocation of the August 2013
Amendment, we reverse that portion of the final judgment adjudicating count
II and remand with instructions for the trial court to dismiss count II as moot.6
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
6
We affirm, without discussion, the other issues raised by Developer in this
appeal.
10
