Gary Dear v. Q Club Hotel, LLC, 933 F.3d 1286

Background

Q Club operates a condominium-hotel governed by a Declaration requiring unit owners to pay a pro rata share (40.4967%) of certain "Shared Costs" for shared components (lobby, pools, fitness center, parking, etc.).
From 2007–2012 the parties followed an existing method of allocating Shared Costs; in 2012 Q Club changed its methodology and announced it would apply the new method retroactively to recoup omitted charges over ten years.
A class of unit owners (lead plaintiff Dear) sued, alleging (1) the Declaration forbids retroactive "back-charging" and (2) Q Club’s new methodology improperly classifies some items as Shared Costs.
The district court held as a matter of law that the Declaration forbids retroactive assessments (Dear prevailed on back-charging). The court submitted the separate Shared Costs classification issue to a jury. The jury found for Q Club on that issue.
Dear sought a new trial based on allegedly newly discovered deposition testimony; the district court denied relief. Both parties appealed: Q Club challenged the back-charging ruling; Dear challenged the jury verdict, instructions, and new-trial denial.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed: it held the Declaration does not authorize retroactive reassessments, and found no reversible error in sending the Shared Costs issue to the jury, in the jury instructions given, or in denying a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dear)	Defendant's Argument (Q Club)	Held
Whether the Declaration permits retroactive "back-charging" for Shared Costs	Declaration does not authorize retroactive reassessments; back-charging is prohibited	§12 authorizes revised annual charges “at any time” and catchall "other charges lawfully imposed," permitting retroactive billing	Declaration is construed in context; annual charges can only be amended during the year levied and the catchall does not authorize multi-year retroactive reassessments — back-charging not permitted (affirmed for Dear)
Whether items Q Club classified as Shared Costs breached the Declaration	Many contested items are not Shared Components and thus not recoverable as Shared Costs	The new methodology correctly classifies and allocates Shared Costs	Jury verdict for Q Club: no breach on Shared Costs classification; court found no reversible error in submitting issue to jury
Proper allocation of interpretive authority (court vs jury) over the Shared Costs definition	Court should have resolved the issue as a matter of law in Dear’s favor and instructed the jury accordingly	The parties at times treated the question as for the jury; Q Club argued legal judgment but also moved for JMOL	Dear forfeited a Rule 50(a) motion and invited the jury trial posture; appellate court held issue forfeited and sustained submission to jury
Whether newly discovered deposition testimony warranted a new trial	Newly discovered testimony (2010 deposition) contradicted Q Club’s trial witness and would likely change the verdict	Testimony concerned the old methodology and did not materially contradict trial testimony	District court did not abuse discretion denying a new trial: evidence was not likely to produce a different result

Key Cases Cited

S.-Owners Ins. Co. v. Easdon Rhodes & Assocs. LLC, 872 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir.) (contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
In re Chira, 567 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (apply Erie and state contract law when interpreting governing documents)
Key v. Allstate Ins. Co., 90 F.3d 1546 (11th Cir.) (interpret contract by plain meaning; avoid adding hidden terms)
Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir.) (construe contract as whole and avoid treating terms as surplusage)
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U.S. 639 (U.S.) (specific governs the general in textual interpretation)
Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S.) (courts should not find expansive meanings in vague textual hooks)
Marriott Corp. v. Dasta Const. Co., 26 F.3d 1057 (11th Cir.) (courts may not rewrite contracts to relieve a party of an improvident bargain)
Etienne v. Inter-County Sec. Corp., 173 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir.) (liberal view of what constitutes an RMOL, but party must still request judgment)
Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir.) (issues not raised in earlier motion cannot be asserted in a renewed motion)
Christopher v. Cutter Labs., 53 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.) (review of jury instructions considers whether they fairly and adequately state the law)
Roberts & Schaefer Co. v. Hardaway Co., 152 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir.) (three-part test for reversible error in refusing a requested jury instruction)
McGinnis v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., 817 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of a new trial)
United States v. Campa, 459 F.3d 1121 (11th Cir.) (motions for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence are highly disfavored)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir.) (elements plaintiff must meet to obtain new trial for newly discovered evidence)