Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 2, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1796

Lower Tribunal No. 22-6298 SP

________________

Age of Empire, Inc., etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

Ocean Two Condominium Association, Inc., etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha 

Darrough, Judge.

Craig B. Shapiro, P.A., and Craig B. Shapiro, for appellant.

Continental PLLC, and John Arrastia, Jr., Brandon J. Hechtman and 

Carlos Enrique Alvarez, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. 

GORDO, J.
2

Age of Empire, Inc. (“Empire”) appeals an order granting Ocean Two 

Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“the Association”) motion to dismiss with 

prejudice. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Finding no 

error in the trial court’s dismissal of the case filed before it, we affirm. 

In February of 2020, Empire and the Association entered into a 

contract (“the Construction Agreement”) where Empire would provide 

restoration and improvement services for the Association’s premises located 

in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida. Empire allegedly timely performed and 

complied with each obligation required under the Construction Agreement. 

On February 25, 2022, Empire filed an initial complaint asserting a single 

count for breach of contract alleging the Association failed to make final 

payment under the Construction Agreement, which it attached to the 

complaint. Empire later filed an amended complaint to which it attached a 

final contractor’s affidavit dated June 10, 2022, as proof that it satisfied the 

condition precedent to final payment pursuant to the Construction 

Agreement. The Association filed a motion to dismiss the amended 

complaint arguing the newly attached exhibit demonstrated that Empire 

failed to perform a contractual condition precedent to filing the lawsuit. After 

a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, dismissing Empire’s amended 
3

complaint with prejudice only as to the lawsuit before it but not as to the 

actual claim. This appeal followed. 

“We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss with 

prejudice.” Johansson v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Value Adjustment Bd., 346 So. 

3d 90, 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). “It is the established rule that, upon a motion 

to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a cause of action, all material 

allegations of the complaint are taken as true . . . . Those allegations are then 

reviewed in light of the applicable substantive law to determine the existence 

of a cause of action.” Peeler v. Indep. Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 206 So. 2d 34, 

36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967) (citations omitted). “‘Any exhibit attached to a 

pleading shall be considered a part thereof for all purposes’. Rule 1.130(b), 

R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. In considering the motion to dismiss the trial court was 

required to consider the exhibit (deposition) attached to and incorporated in 

the amended complaint.” Harry Pepper & Assocs., Inc. v. Lasseter, 247 So. 

2d 736, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971); see also Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(b) (“Any 

exhibit attached to a pleading must be considered a part thereof for all 

purposes.”). 

Article 6.2 of the Construction Agreement provides: “[f]inal payment 

shall not be due until the Contractor has delivered to the Association . . . a 

final contractor’s affidavit pursuant to Section 713.06(2), Florida Statutes.” 
4

Where the allegations in the complaint are contradicted by the complaint’s 

attached exhibits, the plain meaning of the exhibits control and may be the 

basis for a motion to dismiss. See Hunt Ridge at Tall Pines, Inc. v. Hall, 766 

So. 2d 399, 401 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“Where complaint allegations are 

contradicted by exhibits attached to the complaint, the plain meaning of the 

exhibits control and may be the basis for a motion to dismiss.”); Ginsberg v. 

Lennar Fla. Holdings, Inc., 645 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“When 

a party attaches exhibits to the complaint those exhibits become part of the 

pleading and the court will review those exhibits accordingly.”). Here, the 

exhibits unequivocally established that Empire did not deliver the final 

contractor’s affidavit to the Association prior to filing suit, a condition 

precedent to a breach of contract claim for failure to tender final payment 

under the Construction Agreement. As such, we find the trial court properly 

dismissed the claim before it and noted that a future claim would not be 

barred, as dismissal with prejudice was only as to the lawsuit before it but 

not the actual claim. “The dismissal with prejudice of a prematurely filed 

claim does not bar a subsequent action once the claim has ripened.” Shuck 

v. Bank of Am., N.A., 862 So. 2d 20, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). 

Affirmed.