Court Opinion

ID: 9414658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 15:04:50.82546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.277829
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed August 2, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-2085
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-18516
                          ________________

                            Jeffrey Bydalek,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                            Eduardo Saenz,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria de
Jesus Santovenia, Judge.

     Rodolfo Nuñez, P.A., and Rodolfo Nuñez, for appellant.

      Lerman & Whitebook, P.A., and Carlos D. Lerman (Hollywood), for
appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ.

     EMAS, J.
     Jeffrey Bydalek, the defendant below (“Seller”), appeals final summary

judgment entered in favor of Eduardo Saenz, the plaintiff below (“Buyer”), in

an action filed by Buyer following a failed real estate transaction for the

purchase and sale of a residential condominium unit.

     Pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement and an addendum

thereto, the closing was scheduled to take place on May 4, 2021. The

agreement contained a condominium rider, which provided:

     THIS AGREEMENT IS VOIDABLE BY BUYER BY DELIVERING
     WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE BUYER’S INTENTION TO
     CANCEL WITHIN 3 DAYS, EXCLUDING SATURDAYS,
     SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS, AFTER THE DATE OF
     EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE BUYER AND
     RECEIPT BY BUYER OF A CURRENT COPY OF THE
     DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM, ARTICLES OF
     INCORPORATION, BYLAWS AND RULES OF THE
     ASSOCIATION, AND A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR-
     END FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND FREQUENTLY ASKED
     QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT, IF SO
     REQUESTED IN WRITING. ANY PURPORTED WAIVER OF
     THESE VOIDABILITY RIGHTS SHALL BE OF NO
     EFFECT. BUYER MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR CLOSING
     FOR A PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 3 DAYS, EXCLUDING
     SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS, AFTER
     THE BUYER RECIEVES THE DECLARATION OF
     CONDOMINIUM, ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, BYLAWS
     AND RULES OF THE ASSOCIATION, AND A COPY OF THE
     MOST RECENT YEAR-END FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND
     FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
     DOCUMENT, IF REQUESTED IN WRITING. BUYER’S RIGHT

                                     2
      TO VOID THIS AGREEMENT SHALL TERMINATE AT
      CLOSING.1

(Emphasis added).

      Although the closing was scheduled for May 4, 2021, it is undisputed

that the closing never took place. On May 13, 2021, Buyer notified Seller

that Buyer was canceling the agreement for failure to receive the above-

referenced condominium documents, and demanded the return of his

deposit. When Seller refused to return the deposit, Buyer filed suit for breach

of contract. Seller contended that Buyer was not entitled to the return of his

deposit because Buyer had failed to close on the agreed-upon date and that

the right to void the agreement terminated on the agreed-upon date

scheduled for closing, even if the closing never took place.

      Buyer filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that because he

canceled the agreement prior to his receipt of the condominium documents,

he was authorized under the agreement to void the agreement and was

thereby entitled to return of his deposit as a matter of law. Seller argued that

1
  This voidability provision is mandated by statute which, as discussed infra,
requires an agreement for the sale of a residential condominium unit to
include the operative language above. See § 718.503(2)(d)2., Fla. Stat.
(2021). The statute further provides: “A contract that does not conform to
the requirements of this paragraph is voidable at the option of the purchaser
prior to closing.”

                                       3
Buyer’s right to void the agreement on the basis of a failure to provide the

requisite condominium documents terminated on the date of the scheduled

closing and therefore, the Buyer’s cancellation nine days after the scheduled

closing date was of no effect.

      After a hearing, the trial court granted Buyer’s motion for summary

judgment, finding that because Buyer never received the condominium

documents required under the agreement, and because a closing (though

scheduled) never took place, Buyer maintained the right to void the

agreement. The trial court later denied Seller’s motion for rehearing, and this

appeal followed.

      We review de novo the trial court’s construction of a contract and of a

statutory provision. See Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P.,

760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000); Priority Med. Ctrs., LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

319 So. 3d 724, 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

      The language contained in the agreement at issue is imported verbatim

from section 718.503(2)(d)2., Fla. Stat. (2021), which provides that an

agreement for the sale of a residential condominium unit must contain the

following clause in conspicuous type:

      THIS AGREEMENT IS VOIDABLE BY BUYER BY DELIVERING
      WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE BUYER’S INTENTION TO
      CANCEL WITHIN 3 DAYS, EXCLUDING SATURDAYS,
      SUNDAYS, AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS, AFTER THE DATE OF

                                        4
     EXECUTION OF THIS AGREEMENT BY THE BUYER AND
     RECEIPT BY BUYER OF A CURRENT COPY OF THE
     DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM, ARTICLES OF
     INCORPORATION, BYLAWS AND RULES OF THE
     ASSOCIATION, AND A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR-
     END FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND FREQUENTLY ASKED
     QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT IF SO
     REQUESTED IN WRITING. ANY PURPORTED WAIVER OF
     THESE VOIDABILITY RIGHTS SHALL BE OF NO EFFECT.
     BUYER MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR CLOSING FOR A
     PERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN 3 DAYS, EXCLUDING
     SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS, AND LEGAL HOLIDAYS, AFTER
     THE BUYER RECEIVES THE DECLARATION, ARTICLES OF
     INCORPORATION, BYLAWS AND RULES OF THE
     ASSOCIATION, AND A COPY OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR-
     END FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND FREQUENTLY ASKED
     QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DOCUMENT IF REQUESTED IN
     WRITING. BUYER’S RIGHT TO VOID THIS AGREEMENT
     SHALL TERMINATE AT CLOSING.

(Emphasis added).

     The significant portion of this statutory language is the last sentence,

which provides: “BUYER’S RIGHT TO VOID THIS AGREEMENT SHALL

TERMINATE AT CLOSING” (emphasis added). “At closing” means when

the closing occurs; takes place; is consummated. Thus, under the plain

language of the statute, and the corresponding purchase agreement, Buyer’s

right to void the agreement had not terminated because the closing had not

occurred. Seller urges this court to construe the plain language above to

mean that the buyer’s right to void the agreement terminates “on the date

agreed upon for closing,” even if the closing does not actually occur.

                                     5
However, “[w]hen the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look

behind the statute's plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of

statutory construction to ascertain intent.” Daniels v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 898

So. 2d 61, 64 (Fla. 2005). “It is a well-established tenet of statutory

construction that courts ‘are not at liberty to add words to the statute that

were not placed there by the Legislature.” State v. J.M., 824 So. 2d 105, 111

(Fla. 2002) (quoting Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999)). We “do not

have the authority to ignore plain and unambiguous language under the

guise of interpretation.” Housing Opportunities Project v. SPV Realty, LC,

212 So. 3d 419, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). If the Legislature (or the parties to

the agreement) intended to provide that the buyer’s right to void the

agreement terminated “on the date agreed upon for closing” rather than “at

closing,” it should have said so. Fla. Convalescent Ctrs. v. Somberg, 840 So.

2d 998, 1001 (Fla. 2003) (“Logically, if the Legislature had intended for the

Nursing Home Act to be limited by the Wrongful Death Act, it would have

said so, rather than broadly providing not only for damages but also for a

personal representative to claim those damages”).

      We find helpful the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in

Princeton Homes, Inc. v. Morgan, 38 So. 3d 207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which

construed an analogous voidability provision of Florida’s Homeowners’

                                       6
Associations Act (Chapter 720), which requires a disclosure containing

nearly identical language in sales contracts involving property subject to

homeowners’ associations membership: “BUYER’S RIGHT TO VOID THIS

CONTRACT SHALL TERMINATE AT CLOSING.”                      See Fla. Stat. §

720.401(1)(b) (2010). Our sister court, construing this provision, held that

the buyer’s “right to void the contract remained open when she demanded

the refund of her deposit in November 2007, as the closing had not occurred

and she never received a disclosure summary prior to voiding the contract.”

Princeton, 38 So. 3d at 210. Notwithstanding the above holding, Seller

contends that Princeton Homes is distinguishable because in that case the

closing date had not yet occurred when the buyer voided the agreement; in

the instant case, by contrast, the closing date had already come and gone

(but no closing had taken place) by the time Buyer voided the agreement.

We acknowledge the distinction, but conclude it is one without a difference.

In both Princeton Homes and the instant case, the operative statutory and

contractual language provided that the buyer’s right to void the agreement

“shall terminate at closing.” In Princeton Homes, as in the instant case, there

never was a closing at which that right would terminate. We find no merit in

the remaining arguments raised by Seller.

      Affirmed.

                                      7