ARIA ON THE BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
BAYSHORE PLAZA I, LLC, ETC., ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Aria on the Bay Condominium Association appeals trial court orders validating the Developer's December 2019 transfers of parking and storage spaces to Bayshore. The appellate court affirms, holding that the Developer met its summary judgment burden by establishing it was still offering units for sale and that the spaces were assignable under the Declaration of Condominium, and Aria failed to present evidence creating a genuine factual dispute.
The trial court did not err. Developer and Bayshore met their initial summary judgment burden by presenting evidence that Developer was still offering condominium units for sale in the ordinary course of business and that the parking spaces and five storage spaces were assignable under the Declaration of Condominium. Aria failed to rebut this showing with evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. The post-summary judgment findings regarding the remaining two storage spaces and ejectment claim were supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] A party moving for summary judgment satisfies its initial burden by presenting evidence that establishes the elements essential to its case.
[2] Once the moving party satisfies its initial summary judgment burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to present record evidence creating a genuine issue of mater…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Under the new [summary judgment] standard, once the moving party satisfies [the] initial burden [of proof], the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to 'make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'”
Establishes the burden-shifting framework under summary judgment that governed the trial court's analysis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn December 2019, Developer transferred thirty-four parking spaces and seven storage spaces located in the Aria on the Bay condominium building to con…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ejectment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, appellant Aria on the Bay Condominium Association, Inc. (“Aria”) challenges two trial court orders that, taken together, effectively validate transfers, in December 2019, of thirty-four parking spaces and seven storage spaces located in the Aria on the Bay condominium building from appellee Bayshore Plaza I, LLC (“Developer”) to condominium units owned by 1770 Bayshore Plaza Drive, LLC’s (“Bayshore”).
We affirm the challenged orders because Developer and Bayshore met their initial summary judgment burden by presenting evidence that, at the time of the transfers, established: (i) Developer was still offering condominium units for sale in the ordinary course of business; and (ii) the assigned parking spaces and five of the seven assigned storage spaces were assignable pursuant to the Declaration of Condominium. Aria failed to rebut this showing by presenting record evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact.
Thus, the trial court did not err in granting Developer and Bayshore’s summary judgment motion and denying Aria’s partial summary judgment motion. See Rich v. Narog, 366 So. 3d 1111, 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Under the new [summary judgment] standard, once the moving party satisfies [the] initial burden [of proof], the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to ‘make a showing sufficient to establish the existence
of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.’ Specifically, it is incumbent upon the nonmoving party to come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating that a genuine issue of fact exists as to an element necessary for the non-movant to prevail at trial.”) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)).
We also affirm the trial court’s post-summary judgment findings – regarding the assignability of the two remaining storage spaces and Bayshore’s ejectment claim – because those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See SG 2901, LLC v. Complimenti, Inc., 323 So. 3d 804, 807 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (holding that a trial court did not err when the findings of fact it made following a bench trial were supported by competent, substantial evidence).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- Ross v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 366 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Gonzalo Lopez-Jordan v. Araguaney Ltd., 323 So. 3d 804 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)