PLAZA DEL PRADO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE DEL PRADO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a condominium management contract executed before the effective date of § 711.13(4) could not be cancelled under that statute, as the management company's substantial rights vested before the statute's effective date.
A management contract's substantial rights that accrued before a statute's effective date cannot be abrogated by that statute, even if the contract was subsequently modified.
[1] Substantial rights in a contract that vest before a statute's effective date are protected from abrogation by that statute, even if the contract is subsequently modified.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaza del Prado Condominium Association sought to cancel a management contract with Del Prado Management Company. The management contract was executed…
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 Vested Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Plaza del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., was the plaintiff in a suit for declaratory judgment wherein it sought the court’s approval for its attempted cancellation of a contract with the appellee, The Del Prado Management Company, Inc. Under a contract appellee had rights providing for its management of the condominium, resulting in the trial court entering judgment in appellee’s favor holding that under § 711.13(4), Fla.Stat., the existing contract could not be unilaterally cancelled. On appeal, it is urged that the chancellor incorrectly held the statute inapplicable to the management contract. Upon this issue of mixed law and fact, the trial court decided that the management contract was an effective binding instrument prior to the effective date of the section referred to. It is agreed that unless it can be given retrospective effect, the section became effective on January 1, 1972, and it is further agreed that the contract was dated and executed on December 28, 1971. Appellant urges that a substantial modification of the contract occurred on February 10, 1972 and that this modification was sufficient to bring the entire contract within the scope of the statute.
We agree with the conclusion reached by the trial judge that the substantial rights under the contract of the appellee Management Company accrued prior to the effective date of the statute and therefore that these rights could not be abrogated by legislative enactment. See Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R Ranch, Inc., Fla.1973, 275 So. 2d 521.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Point E. ONE Condo. Corp., Inc. v. Point E. Developers, Inc., 348 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…to the subject Community Facility Lease without infringing upon the constitutional inhibition against impairment of the obligation of contracts. Plaza del Prado Condominium Association, Inc. v. The Del Prado Management Company, Inc., Fla.App. 1974, 298 So. 2d 544; Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., Fla.1973, 275 So. 2d 521. “The allegations as to violations of the Florida Deceptive Practices Act and the 1974 amendment to the Condominium Act are incorporated and made a part of all counts of…
-
Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald, 356 So. 2d 1306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1976); Fleeman v. Case, 342 So. 2d 815 (Fla.1976); Point East One Condominium Corp. v. Point East Developers, Inc., 348 So. 2d 32 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Plaza del Prado Condominium Ass’n. v. Del Prado Management Co., 298 So. 2d 544 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint herein. Affirmed. . “If any portion of the common elements or common areas or any other property serving the unit owners of a condominium or cooperative i…
Authorities Cited
- Trs. OF Tufts Coll. v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., 275 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1973)