South Florida Coastal Electric, Inc. v. Treasures on the Bay II Condo Ass'n
89 So. 3d 264
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- KMC, the project developer, established Treasures and contracted with South Florida to perform electrical work on Treasures’ building and common areas, and South Florida billed Treasures with some unpaid invoices.
- South Florida obtained a judgment against KMC for payment but did not name Treasures in that suit and then sued Treasures alleging a contract with Treasures to perform the electrical work.
- Treasures answered with defenses asserting the developer controlled the property and that there was no contract between South Florida and Treasures.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Treasures, relying on an absence of contract and on a lack of agency, finding issues of fact insufficient to defeat Treasures’ defenses.
- On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment, holding there were disputed issues of fact regarding who authorized the work, whether an agency relationship exists, and whether Treasures or KMC contracted for the services, warranting remand for factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who contracted for the electrical work | South Florida contends Treasures contracted for the work (or was responsible for it). | Treasures did not contract for the work; the developer controlled the project and there was no agreement with Treasures. | Disputed facts; summary judgment improper; remand for factfinding on contract/agency. |
| Existence of an agency relationship | Agency either actual or apparent could render Treasures liable for South Florida’s charges. | No agency between Treasures and South Florida; Treasures not liable. | Agency contested; remand warranted to determine authority and agency implications. |
| Effect of the developer’s control under Rule 1.221 | Rule 1.221 considerations could support Treasures' liability despite contract questions. | Developer control negates Treasures’ liability absent a contract or agency. | Issues of control and agency material; cannot grant summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Krol v. City of Orlando, 778 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (record viewed in light most favorable to non-movant)
- Villazon v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Inc., 843 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2003) (agency; evident disputes preclude summary judgment)
- Goldschmidt v. Holman, 571 So.2d 422 (Fla. 1990) (pleading vicarious liability; required ultimate facts)
- Saralegui v. Sacher, 19 So.3d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (apparent agency not pled; summary judgment proper when not pled)
- Diaz v. Bell MicroProds. — Future Tech, Inc., 43 So.3d 138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (attachment of contracts to pleadings; contract basis necessary)
- Hemisphere National Bank v. Goudie, 504 So.2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (summary judgment must be based on pleadings)
- Reina v. Gingerale Corp., 472 So.2d 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (pleadings-driven issues at summary judgment)