Harbor Communities, LLC v. Jerue
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 3255
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- In June 2004, Jerues contracted with Harbor for a condo and paid deposits totaling $42,855.
- The contract guaranteed completion and delivery within two years from execution.
- In June 2006, Jerues canceled in writing and sought a deposit refund due to Harbor’s alleged non-delivery.
- Harbor refused to refund and then counterclaimed that Jerues breached by failing to close.
- Discovery followed; Jerues moved for summary judgment arguing Harbor breached the two-year guarantee.
- On December 10, 2008, the trial court granted summary judgment for Jerues and entered a final judgment for $42,855; it treated the order as final.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the December 10, 2008 order a final judgment? | Jerues argues the order granted judgment and thus was final. | Harbor contends it was merely an order for summary judgment, not final. | The court held the order was a final judgment. |
| Did the first final judgment implicitly deny Harbor’s counterclaim? | Jerues contends the counterclaim was denied by the final judgment. | Harbor contends the counterclaim remained unresolved. | The court held the counterclaim was implicitly denied in the first final judgment. |
| Was a second final judgment proper after the first final judgment was affirmed on appeal? | Jerues argues a second final judgment was authorized to resolve remaining issues. | Harbor argues the trial court lacked authority to issue a second final judgment outside Rules 1.530/1.540. | The court held the second final judgment was unauthorized and vacated it. |
| Did the first final judgment reserve jurisdiction for prejudgment or attorneys’ fees? | Jerues contends no such jurisdiction was reserved for fees. | Harbor asserts possible reservation for fees was implied or lacking. | The court rejected reserving jurisdiction for fees outside Rule 1.525 and vacated the second judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Donaldson Eng’g., Inc. v. City of Plantation, 326 So.2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (final judgment requirement to dispose of merits; nothing left to do)
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970) (after final judgment, trial court lacks power to alter, except rules 1.530/1.540)
- Bank One, N.A. v. Batronie, 884 So.2d 346 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (after final judgment, jurisdiction limited to enforcement absent Rule 1.540)
- Westgate Miami Beach, Ltd. v. Newport Operating Corp., 55 So.3d 567 (Fla.2010) (permit prejudgment interest reservation may exist in final judgments)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Hoester, 930 S.W.2d 52 (Mo.App.1996) (counterclaim resolved by judgment can render it final despite no explicit denial)
- Roberts v. Security Trust & Sav. Bank of Brilliant, 470 So.2d 674 (Ala.1985) (judgment for plaintiff implies denial of counterclaim)