Tara Woods SPE, LLC v. Cashin
116 So. 3d 492
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Tara Woods Mobile Home Park owner appeals after final and supplemental final judgments in favor of resale purchaser Louella Cashin.
- Action concerns Florida Mobile Home Act disclosures as to resale buyers and whether Tara Woods complied with §723.059.
- Cashin bought a resale home in August 2007 from the seller’s trustee and signed Rental Assumption and Rental Agreement for Sept–Dec 2007, with an identical rent-increase provision to the seller’s agreement, referencing the Prospectus.
- Cashin received an approved Prospectus (1994) and an approved Lifetime Lease (2006); the Prospectus warned that increases and terms were disclosed and could be reviewed against the contract documents.
- Cashin also signed an acknowledgment that she did not receive the original Seller Prospectus and accepted the current Tara Woods Prospectus as a guide; two Lifetime Leases were later introduced at trial.
- The trial court held that Tara Woods failed to adequately inform Cashin of rights under §723.059 and that the Lifetime Lease conflicted with the Prospectus, granting rescission; on appeal, the court reversed, holding Tara Woods complied with the Act and that waiver was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court misinterpret the Act’s disclosures? | Cashin argued the Prospectus governs rights and must be treated as supreme over inconsistent leases. | Tara Woods argued the Act treats the Prospectus as a disclosure document, not a contract overriding the Lifetime Lease. | No error; relief reversed; Prospectus is disclosure, not supreme contract. |
| Whether Tara Woods was required to provide Cashin the seller’s Prospectus or an optional lease | Cashin relied on §723.059(3) granting rights to rely on the seller’s terms. | Tara Woods argued §723.059(3) does not impose a duty to provide the seller’s Prospectus to a resale buyer; only permits reliance on it. | No duty to provide seller’s Prospectus; no obligation to disclose an optional lease beyond statute. |
| Whether Tara Woods had to inform Cashin of a different rental amount under an optional lease | Cashin contends she was not informed of the optional lease terms or the base rent difference. | Woods argued the Act does not require disclosure of optional lease terms to resale buyers. | Not required to disclose those differences; waiver analysis controls disclosure sufficiency. |
| Whether Cashin validly waived her rights under §723.059 | Cashin did not knowingly waive rights beyond the Act’s terms; the court erred by extending remedies. | Woods argued Cashin voluntarily signed the Lifetime Lease with conspicuous waiver language and had opportunity to seek legal advice. | Cashin waived rights by voluntary execution of the Lifetime Lease and acknowledgment; waiver supported. |
| Whether the court should grant rescission or affirm compliance with the Act | Cashin sought rescission based on noncompliance with §723.059 and misdisclosure. | Woods contends the disclosures and approvals satisfied the Act; rescission unsupported. | Remand for judgment in favor of Tara Woods; the court’s rescission ruling reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village Park Mobile Home Ass’n., Inc. v. Florida Dep’t. of Bus. Reg., 506 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (prospectus is a disclosure document; not the contract)
- Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Fla., Inc. v. Fla. Manufactured Hous. Ass’n., Inc., 683 So.2d 586 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (prospectus must be delivered prior to enforceable rental agreement)
- Wexler v. Rich, 80 So.3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (contractual knowledge of contents; waiver considerations)
- Rocky Creek Rest. Props., Inc. v. Estate of Fox, 19 So.3d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (party presumed to know contract terms; knowledge critical)
- Overstreet v. State, 629 So.2d 125 (Fla.1993) (statutory words given plain meaning)