Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Ass'n
82 So. 3d 1077
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Alordas purchased a townhouse in Sutton Place in 2007 and are subject to the Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements.
- Section 9.04 requires the owner to maintain residential insurance and furnish proof at purchase and on each anniversary.
- Association notified Alordas in 2008 when proof was not received and pursued pre-suit mediation in September 2008.
- Association filed suit on April 9, 2009 seeking injunctive relief to enforce insurance-notice provision.
- Alordas provided insurance coverage effective March 19, 2009, after the suit was filed, and moved to dismiss arguing the lack of a threatened harm and mootness.
- Trial court held Association prevailed and awarded fees, but this Court reverses, holding no prevailing party for equitable relief where a remedy at law exists.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can the Association be the prevailing party for attorney's fees when it sought equitable relief lacking due to an available legal remedy? | Alorda argues there was an adequate remedy at law under the Declaration. | Alorda contends the Association cannot prevail on equitable relief when a legal remedy exists. | No; the Association cannot be the prevailing party. |
| Was injunctive relief properly pleaded or moot given timing of insurance coverage? | Alorda maintains the complaint failed to show lack of adequate legal remedy and mootness. | Association relied on equitable relief despite adequate legal remedies. | Inadequate to establish prevailing party status; moot because remedy achieved. |
| Did the trial court err in denying dismissal and proceeding to determine prevailing party for fees? | Alorda argued dismissal should have resolved the dispute; no injunctive remedy remained. | Association anticipated relief through injunction; trial proceeded on fee issue. | Yes, error; should have dismissed for lack of actionable injunctive relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. Tampa Electric Co., 949 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (injunctive relief requires lack of adequate remedy at law to be prevailing)
- Digaeteno v. Perotti, 374 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (equitable relief improper where adequacy of legal remedy exists)
- Coriat v. Global Assurance Grp., Inc., 862 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (pleading must show lack of adequate legal remedies within four corners of complaint)
- City of Coral Springs v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc., 340 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (dismissal warranted when complaint fails to state action for injunctive relief)
- McKelvey v. Kismet, Inc., 430 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (prevailing party fees when complaint dismissed for failure to state action)
- Valcarcel v. Chase Bank USA NA, 54 So. 3d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (even if dismissal is not on merits, prevailing party status may attach when action is dismissed)