Dolphin LLC v. WCI Communities, Inc.
715 F.3d 1243
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Dolphin bought a condo unit at One Singer Island from WCI; $560,000 deposit held by escrow agent.
- Dolphin sued in 2007 seeking rescission, deposit return, and fees; alleged ILSFDA and FDUTPA violations.
- WCI claimed exemption from ILSFDA and denied FDUTPA violations; counterclaimed for breach of contract.
- District Court granted summary judgment for WCI, finding no ILSFDA applicability and no FDUTPA damages.
- Court held the ILSFDA exemption applies (less than 25 lots) unless a common promotional plan with The Resort is shown.
- Dolphin appealed after remand and the award of attorney’s fees to WCI was challenged; appellate review affirmed the district court’s rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ILSFDA applicability via common promotional plan | Dolphin contends One Singer Island and The Resort were marketed under a common plan. | WCI argues exemption applies; no common promotional plan proven. | No genuine issue; no common promotional plan established; exempt. |
| FDUTPA misrepresentation claim viable | WCI’s use of 'minimum rate' misled; caused damages. | No proof that misrepresentation caused damages; claim fails. | FDUTPA claim fails for lack of causation/damages. |
| Attorney’s fees arising out of contract | Fees should not be awarded under contract if statutory claims not proven. | All claims arose out of the contract; fees authorized. | All claims arose out of the contract; fee award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. England, 432 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2005) (summary-judgment standard; de novo review on appeal)
- Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576 (S. Ct. 2000) (agency interpretations lack Chevron deference; persuasiveness only)
- Stein v. Paradigm Mirasol, LLC, 586 F.3d 849 (11th Cir. 2009) (HUD guidelines not binding regulations; not Chevron-deferential)
- Sterling Fin. Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Hammer, 393 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2004) (arguments not raised in district court not reviewed on appeal)
- Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371 (Fla. 2002) (claims must be inextricably intertwined with contract to arise from contract)