Case Name: V & R, INC., Roger Bacon, Stephen Vincent, and Montego Bay Corporation, Appellants, v. Arthur M. WOLFF, Michael H. Gora, Gulfstream Camera & Sound, Inc., Heath-Jo, Inc., d/b/a Wyn's Green Olive Lounge, Aloha Travel Agency Inc. and John Cavell d/b/a Fort Lauderdale Secretarial Service, and all others similarly situate as a Class, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-07-05
Citations: 452 So. 2d 1029
Docket Number: No. 83-799
Parties: V & R, INC., Roger Bacon, Stephen Vincent, and Montego Bay Corporation, Appellants, v. Arthur M. WOLFF, Michael H. Gora, Gulfstream Camera & Sound, Inc., Heath-Jo, Inc., d/b/a Wyn’s Green Olive Lounge, Aloha Travel Agency Inc. and John Cavell d/b/a Fort Lauderdale Secretarial Service, and all others similarly situate as a Class, et al., Appellees.
Judges: DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 452
Pages: 1029–1029

Head Matter:
V & R, INC., Roger Bacon, Stephen Vincent, and Montego Bay Corporation, Appellants, v. Arthur M. WOLFF, Michael H. Gora, Gulfstream Camera & Sound, Inc., Heath-Jo, Inc., d/b/a Wyn’s Green Olive Lounge, Aloha Travel Agency Inc. and John Cavell d/b/a Fort Lauderdale Secretarial Service, and all others similarly situate as a Class, et al., Appellees.
No. 83-799.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 5, 1984.
J. David Lynch of Andrews & Lubbers, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Michael H. Gora of Wolff & Gora, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
At issue is the propriety of a summary final judgment. We conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist and, therefore, we reverse.
The dedication in the plat of the Coral Shopping Center contains the following language: "All thoroughfares are dedicated to the perpetual use of the public in fee simple forever." The trial court interpreted this language to prohibit commercial tenants in the shopping center from utilizing valet parking in the common parking lot. In their answer to the complaint, the defendant/tenants asserted that their use of the parking lot is not inconsistent with the plat. Because the language in the plat is subject to different reasonable interpretations, and in view of the disputed testimony that valet parking promotes the best use of the parking lot, we conclude that the pleadings and evidence before the trial court raise genuine issues of material fact concerning the proper interpretation of the dedication. Consequently, summary judgment was improper. See Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot Associates, 425 So.2d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), petition for rev. denied, 436 So.2d 100 (Fla.1983); see also Kirsh v. Mannen, 393 So.2d 63 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Eaton v. Madsen, 388 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sarasota County v. Stanton Investment Co. of Missouri, 283 So.2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973).
DOWNEY, HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur.