Sunny Isles Beach Hotel Can Pursue Claims Against Neighbors at La Perla Condo
The Third District Court of Appeal revives a lawsuit by the Newport Beachside hotel over condo balconies next door.
November 29, 2018 at 04:18 PM
4 minute read
A Sunny Isles Beach hotel can pursue its legal claims against a neighboring condominium and some unit owners accused of having protruding balconies that encroach on hotel property.
The Third District Court of Appeal unanimously revived the lawsuit by Newport Beachside Hotel & Resort's lawsuit against La Perla Condominium Association Inc. and owners.
The issue revolves around a 2004 agreement when the condo developer bought the land at 16699 Collins Ave. from the hotel.
The 326-unit La Perla was allowed to build some units that extended over the hotel's property. In turn, the hotel had the right to use the condo's driveway for commercial deliveries, garbage pickup and valet parking, according to the decision issued Wednesday.
The La Perla association was the first to raise an issue, saying in a 2016 lawsuit that the hotel at 16701 Collins Ave. overstepped the agreement by building garbage enclosures with metal gates and concrete walls on condo property and taking over some condo common areas by converting them to offices for its exclusive use. The complaint also said the hotel tapped into the condo tower's power supply.
Hotel owner Five Seas Investors Inc. responded by denying the allegations and saying anything that wasn't covered by the agreement was done with the condominium's approval, including the garbage rooms.
“Plaintiff and/or its predecessor were aware that such rooms were being constructed and allowed them to be built, without objection of any kind. Plaintiff cannot now change its position to defendants' detriment,” Five Seas said in the court filing.
The company also filed a counterclaim against the condo association and the owners of 10 units over the allegedly encroaching balconies.
Five Seas argued the agreement allowed only a few lower-level floors at La Perla to encroach on the hotel property, but the encroaching balconies are on higher floors and not covered by a limited easement area, according to filings.
Those balconies are on floors 39 to 43, according to the opinion.
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Thomas Rebull on Oct. 16, 2017, dismissed Five Seas' trespass claims, agreeing with motions filed by the association and some of the owners.
In a subsequent order in May on a request for reconsideration, Rebull said Five Seas' claims were without merit and called its counterclaim retaliation for La Perla's original suit. He concluded the balconies in dispute didn't violate the easement agreement.
“It simply defies logic and common sense that sophisticated real estate investors and developers would agree to the limited easement area … which is low to the ground over the Five Seas property, but not agree to the allegedly encroaching balconies, which … hang over the Five Seas property to a much lesser extent,” Rebull wrote.
The appellate panel disagreed, saying this is a broad interpretation of the agreement.
“The trial court apparently accepted the argument of the condominium and the unit owners that this agreement granted them air rights to build over 'any portion' of the hotel's property 'without limitation,' ” Judge Thomas Logue wrote. “ This far-reaching interpretation would grant the condominium the right to build over all of the hotel's air space. We cannot read the agreement so expansively.”
Judges Leslie Rothenberg and Vance Salter agreed.
On appeal, Five Seas named only some of the unit owners but not the association, which still had claims pending in the trial court.
Ritter Chusid's Gary Rosner and Shawn Horwick, who represented unit owners on the appeal, declined to comment citing pending litigation.
The appellees also were represented by Shutts & Bowen partners Steven Ebner, Stephen Maher and Jamie Wasserman in Miami. They didn't return requests for comment by deadline.
Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr partners Franklin Zemel and Alan Poppe and associate Ariel Deray in Fort Lauderdale represented Five Seas on appeal. They had no comment by deadline.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250