503 B.R. 499
Bankr. S.D. Florida2014Background
- TOUSA and Superior contracted for Oakmont and Regal Oaks home development; contracts include Limitation Provision barring monetary damages and allowing deposits or specific performance as remedies.
- TOUSA rejected the contracts under § 365(g), depriving Superior of specific performance as a remedy.
- Superior filed multiple proofs of claim for damages under rejection; Claim 7574 sought $33.84 million plus deposits.
- The Court interpreted contract language to determine whether money damages could be an allowable claim after rejection.
- The Court granted summary judgment disallowing money-damages claims but left open the deposit-return issue if deposits were still unapplied.
- A status conference was scheduled to address deposits and potential remaining relief under Claim 7574.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Limitation Provision bars money damages | Superior argues Florida law allows damages despite limitation | TOUSA says Limitation Provision eliminates money damages | Limitation Provision valid; money damages disallowed |
| Whether §502(c) estimation applies given no right to payment | Superior contends there is a right to payment via equitable remedy | No right to payment arises due to Limitation Provision | §502(c) not applicable to money damages; no right to payment exists for damages |
| Whether Florida law Coppola/Schachter exception overrides | Florida cases allow damages when specific performance is unavailable | Distinguishes facts; no constructive trust or sequel remedy here | Coppola/Schachter do not override Limitation Provision; no money damages |
| Whether Limitation Provision is unconscionable or illusory | Provision is illusory/unconscionable under Florida law | Parties are sophisticated; provision valid and enforceable | Limitation Provision not unconscionable or illusory under Florida law |
| Whether deposits not applied can form an allowable claim | Deposit refunds could yield a recoverable claim | Deposits may be recoverable if not applied; unresolved amount | Deposits not yet applied may support an allowable claim; status conference to determine amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment burden and standard; movant must show no genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment only if material)
- Schachter v. Krzynowek, 958 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ( Fla. case allowing damages when specific performance is limited)
- Coppola Enterprises, Inc. v. Alfone, 531 So.2d 334 (Fla. 1988) (constructive trust remedy when seller breaches for third-party offer)
- Ocean Dunes of Hutchinson Island Dev. Corp. v. Colangelo, 463 So.2d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (remedies limited; not analogous to present contract)
- Vernon v. Resolution Trust Corp., 907 F.2d 1101 (11th Cir. 1990) (contract terms given plain meaning; state-law governs claims)
- Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 549 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court 2007) (definition of 'claim' under bankruptcy code; state law controls)