ANCHOR ASSOCIATES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GRENADA, N.V., A NETHERLANDS-ANTILLES CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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.
Anchor Associates appealed a summary judgment in favor of Grenada regarding a 1982 contract for road construction costs. The court reversed, holding that under the plain language of the contract, any use of the road to service Grenada's property—regardless of whether the use was de minimis—triggered Grenada's obligation to pay its pro rata share of construction costs.
Under the plain language of the contract, any use of Della Drive to service appropriately situated Grenada property triggers the repayment obligation, regardless of whether the use is de minimis or significant. Once the trial court determined that a use had occurred, judgment in favor of Anchor was required.
[1] A contractual obligation to pay for road construction costs is triggered by any use of the road to service the obligated party's property, regardless of whether the use i…
[2] A contract provision stating that an agreement is binding upon successors and assigns and is a covenant running with the land indicates the parties' intent for the agreem…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 plain language of the contract, any use of Della Drive to service appropriately situated Grenada property triggers the repayment obligation. It is immaterial whether the use is de minimis or significant.”
States the court's interpretation of the contract and rejects the trial court's de minimis use analysis as contrary to the plain language.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnchor and Grenada entered into a 1982 contract to build Della Drive along their mutual property line. Anchor agreed to build the four-lane road; Gren…
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 De Minimis Non Curat Lex cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Anchor Associates of Orange County, Inc. appeals the summary final judgment in favor of Grenada N.V., a Netherlands-Antilles Corporation. The dispute between the parties stems from the terms of a 1982 contract regarding the triggering of Grenada’s obligation to pay its pro rata share of certain road building expenses incurred by Anchor. We agree with Anchor’s argument that the trial court’s finding that a use occurred requires the entry of summary judgment in Anchor’s favor, and accordingly, we reverse.
Anchor had a long term lease on property adjacent to property owned by Grenada. Anchor and Grenada wanted to build a road along their mutual property line and entered into a contract for the construction of Della Drive., Anchor agreed to build the four-lane road and Grenada agreed to pay 11.67% of the construction costs upon the occurrence of certain events. The contract clauses at issue provide:
[Paragraph 3] Grenada agrees to promptly repay in cash its pro rata share of Della Drive costs at such time as it or its successors or assigns begin using Del la Drive to service any of the Grenada property lying westerly of Della Drive. [Paragraph 4] This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, its successors and assigns, and shall be considered a covenant running with the land owned or leased by the parties contiguous to Della Drive.
Annually since 1985, Marcent of Florida, an affiliate or assign of Grenada, has leased the southeast corner of Grenada’s property to a Christmas tree concessionaire for one month periods. The general public and the concessionaire use Della Drive in furtherance of the tree sales. This portion of Grenada’s land is both west of and contiguous to Della Drive.
Anchor took the position that the above activity constituted a use of Della Drive and Grenada was therefore obligated to pay $29,330.05 in road building costs. Grenada’s position was that use of Della Drive for Christmas tree sales was inconsequential and insufficient to trigger its repayment obligation. The trial court found that Della Drive was used to access the Christmas tree lot, but because the use was de minimis it did not obligate Grenada to pay.
Under the plain language of the contract, any use of Della Drive to service appropriately situated Grenada property triggers the repayment obligation. It is immaterial whether the use is de minimis or significant. Once the trial court determined a use had occurred, it was incumbent upon the court to enter judgment in favor of Anchor. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Anchor. REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur. GOSHORN, C.J., concurs without participation at oral argument.