Case ID: so2d_536/html/1138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FRANK, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CITY OF CLEARWATER, Appellant, v. The MILLS DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC.; United States Steel Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Clearwater Key Association-South Beach I, Inc.; Clearwater Key Association-South Beach II, Inc.; Clearwater Key Association-South Beach—1460 Gulf Blvd., Inc.; Clearwater Key Association-South Beach—1480 Gulf Blvd., Inc.; Sand Key Associates Limited Partnership, a Pennsylvania limited partnership; Dan’s Island 1660 Condominium Association, Inc.; Bernard F. Powell, Individually; Roger L. Stevens, Individually; N.M. Peabody Investment Company, a Delaware corporation; Belleview Cabana Condominium, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership; Amza D. Abdullaj and Bakije Abdullaj, his wife; Neim D. Abdullaj and Enverije S. Abdullaj, his wife; Cheezum Development Corporation; Harbour Light Towers Association, Inc.; Clearwater Sand Key Club, Inc., Number 1; Landmark Towers at Sand Key Condominium Association, Inc.; and Key Sand Association, Limited, a Florida limited partnership, Appellees.
    No. 87-1207.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Dec. 23, 1988.
    Zala Forizs of Blasingame, Forizs & Smiljanich, St. Petersburg, and Arthur J. England, Jr., and Linda A. Wells of Fine Jacobson Schwartz Nash Block & England, Miami, for appellant.
    John T. Blakely of Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A., Clear-water, for appellees.
   FRANK, Judge.

In April of 1980 the City of Clearwater entered into a contract with certain owners of real property on Sand Key for the purpose of renourishing designated beach areas with sand dredged from the Clearwater Inlet. During the succeeding four years the owners became dissatisfied with the City’s progress in achieving the contractual objective. Thus, the owners sued the City. Counts I and II of the amended complaint sought, alternatively, to require the City to construct a one to twenty seaward slope, or to have the City pay damages for its failure to construct the slope required by the contract.

Following a non-jury trial, final judgment was entered for the owners. The trial court determined that although the parties’ contract did not expressly prescribe the degree of slope to be constructed, the bilaterally contemplated result was the natural slope described in a public notice dated October 29, 1979. The court also found that the City in the submission of drawings to the Department of Natural Resources, had indicated a natural slope, thus supporting the determination that a natural slope was intended. Finally, the court concluded that sound construction practices required the City to construct a natural slope.

The court ordered the City to deposit certain amounts of sand at designated areas along the beach. If, however, the City could not obtain the necessary permits, damages in the amount of $801,000 were to be paid to the owners.

We have fully reviewed the massive record and the briefs, and we have noted the differing views urged upon us by the City and the owners. We have found no significant question of law in our assessment of the trial court’s disposition of this matter. We have determined, however, that the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent, substantial evidence.

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and DANAHY, J., concur.