A lawsuit by the former owner of a Hollywood golf course was revived on appeal against a big-name Miami architect in a seven-year dispute over a $1.25 million bonus.

Hillcrest Country Club LP decided to convert the golf course to 645 residences and hired Zyscovich Architects in 2005 to plan the development and obtain zoning approval from the city and other authorities under a master plan design and consulting agreement.

Hillcrest is affiliated with the Annapolis, Maryland-based United Association union of plumbers and  pipe fitters, which is the former owner of the nearby Diplomat Beach Resort Hollywood. The union didn't pursue its redevelopment plan and sold the golf course to Atlanta-based homebuilding giant PulteGroup Inc. for $25 million in 2016.

Pulte's construction of single-family houses and townhouses is more than halfway completed on the 150-acre site northwest of Interstate 95 and Pembroke Road.

Meanwhile, the dispute between Hillcrest and Zyscovich continues. Zyscovich, led by Bernard Zyscovich, was paid a $250,000 base fee plus hourly pay.

The fight over $1.25 million in bonus fees boils down to contract interpretations. Hillcrest claims Zyscovich didn't fulfill all contract obligations warranting the bonus pay, but Zyscovich argues otherwise.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal didn't settle that question, saying Wednesday that the contract is unclear and remanding the case for trial. The court reversed Broward Circuit Judge Carlos Rodriguez's decision granting summary judgment to Zyscovich.

"We conclude that the bonus fee provision was ambiguous, and that neither the architect nor the owner was entitled to summary judgment," Judge Jonathan Gerber wrote for the unanimous panel. Judges Dorian Damoorgian and Mark Klingensmith concurred.

Zyscovich won its motion for summary judgment for liability and damages in 2018 when Rodriguez also denied Hillcrest Country Club's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The Fourth DCA decided neither side is entitled to summary judgment and evidence will be required to interpret the bonus fee provision.

An attorney for Zyscovich remains confident about how the architectural firm will fare in trial.

"We won this case before the trial court judge, but the Fourth DCA has reversed our judgment and ordered a jury trial. We expect to win again before a jury," Richard Daniels, partner at Daniels, Rodriguez, Berkeley, Daniels & Cruz in Coral Gables, said by email.

He represents Zyscovich along with firm partner Ari Sweetbaum.

Carlton Fields shareholder Kevin McCoy in Tampa, who represents Hillcrest Country Club, also looks forward to trial.

"We appreciate the court's thoughtful analysis of these issues, and we look forward to trying this case to a jury to see its view of things," he said by email.

McCoy represents Hillcrest with firm shareholder Joseph Lang Jr. in Tampa.

Lewis Brisbois partner Marissa Kelley in Fort Lauderdale, who represented Hillcrest in circuit court, didn't respond to a request for comment by deadline .

Both sides agree Zyscovich met two conditions for the bonus, namely obtaining neighbors' approval to remove covenants restricting construction on the golf course and securing city approval of the master plan.

They differ on whether the bonus provision also required the receipt of all permits needed for redevelopment, according to the appellate panel.

Hillcrest maintains it was an additional condition but Zyscovich didn't meet it. Hillcrest insists supplemental building permits and other documents beyond the general master plan approval and neighbors' consent were needed.

In court filings, Hillcrest focused on contract language listing the word "permits" several times and maintains this was done to draw a distinction between the other two requirements Zyscovich fulfilled.

Zyscovich, which sued in 2012, countered the permit requirement is synonymous with the work the firm did to secure city master plan approval and neighbors' consent. It noted the contract introduction doesn't state that obtaining permits was a separate conditions for payment of the bonus.

Both sides relied on precedents saying an entire contract should be reviewed to determine its legal effects and the court shouldn't interpret contracts in a way that makes clauses meaningless where there are reasonable interpretations.

Zyscovich and Hillcrest presented "reasonable" arguments to support their case, and the contract could be interpreted either way, the appellate panel concluded.

"After reading the contract as a whole and after considering the rules of construction upon which both parties have relied, we conclude the bonus fee provision is susceptible of interpretation in opposite ways and reasonably or fairly susceptible to different constructions," Gerber wrote. "The arguments which each side has presented are both reasonable, and we can discern no reason to favor one rule of construction over the others in this case."

Related story: