Grand Harbour Development, LLC v. Mitchell G. Lattof, Jr., individually and as trustee under the Will of Frankie T. Lattof, deceased, and Walter Trent Marina, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/17/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2120036 Grand Harbour Development, LLC v. M i t c h e l l G. L a t t o f , J r . , i n d i v i d u a l l y and as t r u s t e e under the W i l l o f F r a n k i e T. L a t t o f , deceased, and Walter T r e n t Marina, I n c . Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-901673) THOMAS, J u d g e . Facts and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On ("GHD"), December entered 13, 2005, G r a n d into a sales Harbour Development, LLC contract to purchase 2120036 approximately ("the 13 a c r e s o f w a t e r f r o n t p r o p e r t y i n Orange B e a c h property") from M i t c h e l l G. Lattof, Jr., individually and as t r u s t e e u n d e r t h e W i l l o f F r a n k i e T. L a t t o f , d e c e a s e d , and Walter Trent collectively as Marina, Inc. "Lattof"). The (hereinafter record referred indicates that i n t e n d e d t o c o n s t r u c t a 4 6 2 - u n i t condominium development d e v e l o p m e n t " ) on the p r o p e r t y . I n a d d i t i o n to the to GHD ("the purchase p r i c e o f $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 , t h e c o n t r a c t i n c l u d e d a number o f t e r m s , including covenants and easements. Paragraph c o n t r a c t , the c o n s t r u c t i o n of which serves d i s p u t e i n t h i s a c t i o n , reads "14. Sellers' as t h e 14 of underlying as f o l l o w s : Purchase of U n i t s . "(A) S e l l e r s s h a l l r e c e i v e , i n the aggregate, a c r e d i t o f $1,500,000.00 a g a i n s t p r e [ - ] c o n s t r u c t i o n o p e n i n g l i s t p r i c e s on up t o t h r e e ( 3 ) c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s w i t h S e l l e r s being g i v e n the a b s o l u t e first c h o i c e f o r one o f s u c h u n i t s and b e i n g g i v e n t h e 2 0 t h and t h e 3 5 t h c h o i c e s f o r t h e o t h e r s o f s u c h u n i t s . S e l l e r s s h a l l n o t i f y Buyer of S e l l e r s ' f i r s t c h o i c e w i t h i n f i f t e e n ( 1 5 ) days of b e i n g p r o v i d e d w i t h f l o o r p l a n s , s i t e p l a n and t e n t a t i v e p r i c i n g , and S e l l e r s s h a l l , p r o m p t l y upon B u y e r ' s r e q u e s t , execute Buyer's standard p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n purchase a g r e e m e n t and p o s t a c a s h p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n e a r n e s t money d e p o s i t e q u a l t o w h a t e v e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e purchase p r i c e i s r e q u i r e d of a l l other pre[-] c o n s t r u c t i o n purchasers of u n i t s i n the development. S e l l e r s a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e c a s h d e p o s i t may be used by Buyer for construction purposes in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e A l a b a m a Condominium A c t , as 2 the 2120036 amended. A t t h e t i m e t h a t S e l l e r s d e s i g n a t e t h e i r f i r s t choice, S e l l e r s s h a l l also i d e n t i f y to Buyer t h e u n i t S e l l e r s hope t o p u r c h a s e w i t h t h e i r 2 0 t h c h o i c e and 35th c h o i c e . S e l l e r s acknowledge t h a t f l o o r p l a n s , s i t e p l a n and pricing provided to S e l l e r s are not n e c e s s a r i l y f i n a l , and, u n t i l the p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t i s e x e c u t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s ( o r t h e r e a f t e r as may be p e r m i t t e d by such p r e [ - ] c o n s t r u c t i o n purchase agreement), Buyer may make s u c h change as B u y e r deems b e s t f i t i n B u y e r ' s s o l e and a b s o l u t e d i s c r e t i o n . F o r e x a m p l e , i f t e n t a t i v e p r i c i n g f o r a u n i t c h o s e n by S e l l e r s i s $1,000,000.00, but Buyer l a t e r i n c r e a s e s a l l p r i c e s by 10% f o r s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l l o f t h e u n i t s o r a l l o f t h e u n i t s o f t h e t y p e c h o s e n by S e l l e r s , t h e n t h e p r i c e f o r t h e u n i t c h o s e n by S e l l e r s s h a l l a l s o be increased commensurately. Sellers s h a l l not be e n t i t l e d t o p u r c h a s e any boat s l i p s w i t h these u n i t s . I n l i e u of p r o v i d i n g a l l or p a r t of t h i s c r e d i t t o S e l l e r s , as a b u y - o u t o f a l l o r some o f S e l l e r s ' u n d e r t h i s p a r a g r a p h 1 4 ( A ) , B u y e r may pay t o S e l l e r s i n c a s h a t any [ ] t i m e p r i o r t o the e x e c u t i o n of p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n purchase agreements u s i n g t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e c r e d i t , t h e amount o f t h e t h e n r e m a i n i n g c r e d i t p l u s t h e sum o f $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . "(B) In a d d i t i o n t o the r i g h t s of S e l l e r s under s u b p a r a g r a p h 1 4 ( A ) a b o v e , S e l l e r s s h a l l have t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) days f o l l o w i n g B u y e r ' s d e l i v e r y t o S e l l e r s of i t s p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n p r i c i n g and b u i l d i n g g r i d t o e l e c t t o p u r c h a s e up t o t w e n t y - f i v e ( 2 5 ) u n i t s on a 'first-come, first-served' basis; Sellers' election and s e l e c t i o n o f t h e n a v a i l a b l e u n i t s must be set f o r t h i n w r i t i n g f a x e d , p r i o r to the e x p i r a t i o n of such t h i r t y (30) day period, to a l l of the f o l l o w i n g : ( I ) ... t o Randy D a v i s / F r a n k M a l o n e , ( i i ) ... t o S k i p D a v i s , ( i i i ) ... t o R i c h a r d D a v i s , and ( i v ) ... t o J i m D e f o e . Upon S e l l e r s ' g i v i n g n o t i c e o f t h e i r e l e c t i o n and s e l e c t i o n as a f o r e s a i d , this Agreement shall be deemed amended to require S e l l e r s , p r o m p t l y upon B u y e r ' s r e q u e s t , t o e x e c u t e B u y e r ' s s t a n d a r d p r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n p u r c h a s e agreement 3 2120036 and t o p o s t a c a s h p r e [ - ] c o n s t r u c t i o n d e p o s i t . B u y e r s h a l l have no o b l i g a t i o n t o ' h o l d ' any u n i t s f o r S e l l e r s d u r i n g t h i s t h i r t y (30) day p e r i o d , and i f any u n i t d e s i r e d t o be p u r c h a s e d by S e l l e r s p u r s u a n t t o t h i s s u b p a r a g r a p h 14(B) has been c o m m i t t e d t o another buyer prior to Sellers' fixing their selections as aforesaid, Sellers shall not be entitled to purchase such u n i t . Buyer is not r e q u i r e d to o f f e r these u n i t s w i t h boat s l i p s . " The p a r t i e s c l o s e d on after executing and the t h e c o n t r a c t ; GHD submitted Beach ("the i t s development p l a n s C i t y " ) and of those p l a n s . following the real suffered a dramatic decline." estate market, d e v e l o p m e n t by Lattof ("the GHD the filed t r i a l court") performed contract and in had Due not a complaint the time f o r p e r f o r m a n c e had site-plan Orange approval " [ i ] n the market at months Beach to the d e c l i n e i n the real- the construction trial Baldwin 2011, with p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r a c t and C i t y of GHD Orange in accordance property on the appeal. on O c t o b e r 28, asking and begun time of t h i s the t o GHD, estate days the w a t e r f r o n t . to received zoning However, a c c o r d i n g closing, two began c l e a r i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i n g m a r i n e i m p r o v e m e n t s on also not s a l e of the p r o p e r t y Circuit Court a l l e g i n g t h a t GHD paragraph court to 14(A) had of the interpret the to determine that a reasonable elapsed. 4 On J a n u a r y 10, 2012, GHD 2120036 f i l e d an answer a n d a c o u n t e r c l a i m defenses and a s k e d the t r i a l i n which i t r a i s e d s e v e r a l court to declare the contract " i l l e g a l a n d v o i d " ; L a t t o f f i l e d an answer t o t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m on F e b r u a r y 1, 2012. L a t t o f f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on A p r i l 20, 2012, arguing that, because the contract d i d not include a s p e c i f i c t i m e f o r GHD t o p e r f o r m i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h paragraph 14(A) had been and t h a t that of the contract, required as to perform w i t h i n time had e l a p s e d . summary j u d g m e n t L a t t o f ' s motion a matter o f l a w , GHD a reasonable time On J u n e 6, 2012, GHD on i t s c o u n t e r c l a i m s filed I n i t s motion a n d was, therefore, requested that the t r i a l void f o r vagueness contained court or that granting other fora void. subdivision Alternatively, f i n d that paragraph that section of the GHD 14(A) was contract a c o n d i t i o n precedent t h a t had not y e t occurred. The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d one to contended t h a t the c o n t r a c t v i o l a t e d § 11-52-30 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a n d t h e C i t y ' s regulations fora a n d an o p p o s i t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . summary j u d g m e n t , GHD a motion L a t t o f ' s motion two j u d g m e n t s on J u n e 22, 2012 -¬ f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d t h e d e n y i n g GHD's m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . 5 GHD filed 2120036 a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e b o t h j u d g m e n t s on J u l y 2012; 19, 18, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d GHD's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on J u l y 2012. On July supreme c o u r t . 25, 2012, GHD However, L a t t o f f i l e d motion f o r f u r t h e r r e l i e f , seeking requesting court that the trial s u p e r s e d e a s bond on August 20, o p p o s i t i o n on A u g u s t 28, 2012. this § court pursuant November 1, 2012, jurisdiction to judgment filed require GHD trial the Ala. and a l l claims in t r a n s f e r r e d to Code 1975. On court i f i t ch[ose], final relief, and/or forms a with r e q u e s t e d " ; L a t t o f f i l e d a renewed m o t i o n f o r f u r t h e r o f judgment and a relief entry addresses enter, of a motion c o u r t r e i n v e s t e d the t r i a l "consider a and/or posting filed our court o f judgment a p p e a l was 12-2-7(6), with of seeking that this to The appeal i n the entry 2012; an requesting that the trial a j u d g m e n t on November 1, 2012, c o u r t r e q u i r e t h e p o s t i n g o f a s u p e r s e d e a s bond. The finding, trial among court entered other things, contract, that a reasonable with paragraph property did regulations 14(A) not had the GHD had breached the time f o r performance i n accordance elapsed, violate regarding that state s a l e of 6 and that the statutes or subdivided s a l e of the the City's property. The 2120036 judgment g r a n t e d L a t t o f ' s motion denied GHD's motion counterclaims. for a f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d summary judgment on i t s S u b s e q u e n t l y , on November 16, 2012, t h i s court a g a i n r e i n v e s t e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t w i t h j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r an amended motion final styled judgment. Lattof filed as a r e q u e s t f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n November 19, 2012, w h i c h i n the f i n a l amended final judgment. judgment court s e t i n t e r e s t and i n c l u d e The t r i a l on November court that e n t e r e d an 26, 2 0 1 2 ; GHD p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n on t h a t same d a y . an o r d e r court a o f j u d g m e n t on requested that the t r i a l out i t s c a l c u l a t i o n s o f prejudgment amount i n the t r i a l filed T h i s court then a issued stating: "The t r i a l c o u r t h a v i n g r e n d e r e d a n d e n t e r e d a f i n a l Judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s C o u r t ' s remands o f November 1 a n d 16, 2012, a n d a R u l e 59, A l a R. C i v . P., m o t i o n h a v i n g been f i l e d , t h i s a p p e a l i s h e l d i n a b e y a n c e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. App. P." GHD f i l e d a m o t i o n t o s t a y e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e judgment and a s u p e r s e d e a s bond i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t on November 28, 2 0 1 2 . The trial motion c o u r t d e n i e d GHD's p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b u t g r a n t e d i t s to stay, on J a n u a r y 17, 2 0 1 3 , a t w h i c h a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t became e f f e c t i v e . time GHD's See R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 5 ) , A l a . R. App. P. ("[A] n o t i c e o f a p p e a l s h a l l become e f f e c t i v e upon 7 2120036 the date of d i s p o s i t i o n of the last of a l l [postjudgment] motions."). GHD a s s e r t s the f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s i n i t s b r i e f on appeal: whether the c o n t r a c t v i o l a t e s s u b d i v i s i o n - c o n t r o l s t a t u t e s regulations, whether the are thereby contract conditions rendering i t void i s vague and precedent to unenforceable; i n d e f i n i t e ; whether GHD's o b l i g a t i o n t o accordance w i t h paragraph and a w a r d o f money damages was whether the and 14(A) Standard of t h a t have n o t there perform yet proper. Review " ' [ a ] summary j u d g m e n t i s p r o p e r when t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and the moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. The b u r d e n i s on t h e m o v i n g p a r t y t o make a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law. I n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the movant has c a r r i e d t h a t b u r d e n , t h e c o u r t i s t o v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y and to draw a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f a v o r o f t h a t p a r t y . To d e f e a t a p r o p e r l y s u p p o r t e d summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , t h e nonmoving p a r t y must p r e s e n t " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " c r e a t i n g a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of in occurred; "We r e v i e w a t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t u n d e r a de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . S p e c i f i c a l l y , 8 and 2120036 i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " Ala. Code 1975, § 12-21-12; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " C a p i t a l A l l i a n c e I n s . Co. v. T h o r o u g h - C l e a n , I n c . , 639 So. 2d 1349, 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . " Walker v. N o r t h A m e r i c a n 2013] So. 3d Sav. , Bank, [Ms. 2110055, M a r c h ( A l a . C i v . App. 8, 2013). Analysis I. We first violated address GHD's argument § 11-52-30 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, subdivision regulations. constituted real a subdivision situated estate within subject the contract and t h e City's S p e c i f i c a l l y , GHD m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e s a l e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , w h i c h was estate that a portion and t h a t of a l a r g e r a contract a subdivision to the contract t o convey is illegal has been defines the subdivided in "subdivision" Section as " [ t ] h e d e v e l o p m e n t and d i v i s i o n o f a l o t , t r a c t , o r p a r c e l o f l a n d i n t o two o r more l o t s , p l a t s , s i t e s , or o t h e r w i s e f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g or c r e a t i n g a s u b d i v i s i o n through the s a l e , lease, or b u i l d i n g development. Development i n c l u d e s , b u t i s n o t l i m i t e d t o , t h e d e s i g n work o f l o t l a y o u t , t h e construction of drainage structures, the 9 real unless compliance with the s u b d i v i s i o n - c o n t r o l s t a t u t e s . 2 4 - 1 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, parcel, 11- 2120036 c o n s t r u c t i o n of b u i l d i n g s or p u b l i c use a r e a s , t h e planning and c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p u b l i c s t r e e t s and p u b l i c r o a d s , and t h e p l a c e m e n t o f p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s . A s u b d i v i s i o n does n o t i n c l u d e t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r development of roads or b u i l d i n g s on private p r o p e r t y t o be u s e d f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p u r p o s e s . " Section 1 1 - 5 2 - 3 3 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, further provides: "Where t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f a s u b d i v i s i o n d e v e l o p m e n t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the m u n i c i p a l planning c o m m i s s i o n , i f t h e owner o r a g e n t o f t h e owner o f any l a n d l o c a t e d w i t h i n a s u b d i v i s i o n , t r a n s f e r s o r s e l l s o r a g r e e s t o s e l l o r n e g o t i a t e s t o s e l l any l a n d by r e f e r e n c e t o or e x h i b i t i o n of or by o t h e r u s e o f a p l a t o f a s u b d i v i s i o n b e f o r e t h e p l a t has been approved by the m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g commission and recorded or filed i n the office of the appropriate c o u n t y p r o b a t e o f f i c e , t h e owner o r a g e n t s h a l l f o r f e i t and p a y a p e n a l t y o f one h u n d r e d d o l l a r s ($100) f o r e a c h l o t o r p a r c e l so t r a n s f e r r e d o r s o l d o r a g r e e d o r n e g o t i a t e d t o be s o l d , and t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e l o t o r p a r c e l b y metes and bounds i n t h e i n s t r u m e n t o f t r a n s f e r o r o t h e r document u s e d i n the p r o c e s s of s e l l i n g or t r a n s f e r r i n g s h a l l not exempt t h e t r a n s a c t i o n f r o m t h e p e n a l t i e s o r f r o m the remedies p r o v i d e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n . " The C i t y has e n a c t e d s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n s a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d by § 11-52-30 e t s e q . City's subdivision regulations defines pursuant to the Section 1.04 a subdivision of the as " [ a ] n y land, vacant or improved, which i s d i v i d e d or p r o p o s e d t o be d i v i d e d i n t o 2 o r more l o t s , p a r c e l s , s i t e s , p l o t s , t r a c t s or i n t e r e s t s f o r the purpose of o f f e r , s a l e , or l e a s e whether immediate or f u t u r e , e i t h e r on t h e i n s t a l l m e n t p l a n o r upon any and a l l other plans, t e r m s , and c o n d i t i o n s . Subdivision includes the division or development of residentially and n o n - r e s i d e n t i a l l y zoned land, 10 2120036 w h e t h e r by d e e d , metes and bounds description, devise, i n t e s t a c y , l e a s e , map or p l a t , or o t h e r recorded instrument." Section 5.02 of the City's subdivision regulations provides: "Whomever t r a n s f e r s o r s e l l s , o r a g r e e s t o s e l l , o r negotiates t o s e l l any l a n d by r e f e r e n c e t o , o r e x h i b i t i o n o f , o r by o t h e r use of a p l a t of a s u b d i v i s i o n b e f o r e s u c h p l a t has received final a p p r o v a l o f t h e Orange B e a c h P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n and r e c o r d e d / f i l e d i n the O f f i c e of the P r o b a t e Judge, B a l d w i n C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , s h a l l f o r f e i t and pay a p e n a l t y t o t h e C i t y o f $500 f o r e a c h l o t o r p a r c e l so t r a n s f e r r e d o r s o l d o r a g r e e d o r n e g o t i a t e d t o be s o l d . The C i t y may e n j o i n s u c h t r a n s f e r o r s a l e o r a g r e e m e n t by a c t i o n f o r i n j u n c t i o n b r o u g h t i n any c o u r t o f e q u i t y j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d / o r may r e c o v e r t h e same p e n a l t y by civil action i n any court of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . " GHD Ala. maintains that Code 1975, and § regulations i n two s a l e of the 13 parcel, b e c a u s e an and recorded, and regulations the contemplated subdivision 5.02 ways. of First, violated § the GHD sale City's the subdivision contends, approved p l a t of of 11-52-33(a), the because of the p r o p e r t y v i o l a t e d the a r g u e s t h a t p a r a g r a p h 14(A) statute the of the and sale regulations of property. was statute contract contract q u o t e d above b e c a u s e i t condominium I t i s true 11 of the the larger subdivision quoted above, t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g the S e c o n d , GHD v i o l a t e d the contract acres r e s u l t e d i n a s u b d i v i s i o n not void. the units, a further t h a t " [ i ] t has long 2120036 been t h e l a w i n Alabama violation of a statute, unenforceable." that that when contract turns on t h e m e a n i n g q u o t e d a b o v e ; however, interpretation. statutory contract i s made i n i s generally v o i d and K i l g o r e Dev., I n c . v. W o o d l a n d P l a c e , L L C , 47 So. 3d 267, 270 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . issue a We of the statute there i s l i t t l e must The r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s therefore and regulations a u t h o r i t y t o guide our turn to the rules construction. "'"The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y construction i s to ascertain and g i v e e f f e c t t o the intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n enacting the s t a t u t e . " IMED C o r p . v. Systems Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 ( A l a . 1992). "'However, when p o s s i b l e , the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d be g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e statute itself.'" Perry v. City of B i r m i n g h a m , 906 So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g B e a v e r s v. W a l k e r C o u n t y , 645 So. 2d 1365, 1376 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) ; Ex p a r t e Lamar A d v e r t i s i n g Co., 849 So. 2d 928, 930 ( A l a . 2002). Therefore, i n "determining the m e a n i n g o f a s t a t u t e , we must b e g i n b y analyzing the language of the s t a t u t e . " Holcomb v. C a r r a w a y , 945 So. 2d 1009, 1018 (Ala. 2006). "'"Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e is used a court i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean exactly what i t s a y s . I f the 12 of 2120036 language of the statute is unambiguous, then t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l construction and t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n effect." "'IMED C o r p . , 602 So. 2d a t 346; s e e a l s o Wynn v. K o v a r , 963 So. 2d 84 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , when " t h e language of a statute i s plain and u n a m b i g u o u s , ... c o u r t s must e n f o r c e t h e s t a t u t e as w r i t t e n b y g i v i n g t h e words o f the s t a t u t e t h e i r o r d i n a r y p l a i n meaning t h e y must i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s a n d t h u s g i v e e f f e c t to the apparent i n t e n t of the L e g i s l a t u r e . " Ex p a r t e T.B., 698 So. 2d 127, 130 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a l s o P e r r y , 906 So. 2d a t 176; Ex p a r t e Lamar A d v e r t i s i n g Co., 849 So. 2d a t 930; B e a v e r s , 645 So. 2d a t 1376-77; Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; a n d IMED C o r p . , 602 So. 2d a t 344. ' "Alabama Dep't o f E n v t l . Mgmt. v. L e g a l Envtl. A s s i s t a n c e Found., I n c . , 973 So. 2d 369, 376 ( A l a . C i v . App. 20 0 7 ) . " Boone v. B i r m i n g h a m Bd. o f E d u c . , 45 So. 3d 757, 761-62 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . GHD cites Kilgore i n support of p a r t i e s i n K i l g o r e executed a contract a subdivision before the recordation I d . a t 268. held that This court, the contract i t s argument. The f o r the sale of l o t s i n of the subdivision p l a t . c i t i n g § 1 1 - 5 2 - 3 0 ( b ) a n d § 11-52-33, was void 13 and t h a t the buyer was 2120036 e n t i t l e d to r e s c i n d the contract. I d . a t 272. In concluding t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was v o i d , t h i s c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t provided t h a t t h e b u y e r w o u l d p u r c h a s e 44 l o t s o f t h e p r o p o s e d subdivision unrecorded that map were "'more p a r t i c u l a r l y d e s c r i b e d or p l a t ' u n r e c o r d e d p l a t was of the s u b d i v i s i o n " attached to the contract supreme court and on t h e that the as an e x h i b i t . Id. Similarly, Developers, our LLC v. T r a p p , held i n Limestone 107 So. 3d 189, 193 Creek ( A l a . 2012), t h a t a c o n t r a c t t o p u r c h a s e l o t s w i t h i n a s u b d i v i s i o n was void because that required i t v i o l a t e d the county approval of the s u b d i v i s i o n actual sale, offering for sale, lots.'" the subdivision, and p r o v i d e d w h i c h was " ' [ p ] r i o r to the [ o r ] t r a n s f e r o r l e a s e o f any I d . a t 190. from supreme c o u r t subdivision LCD input divided as t o t h e l a y o u t i n t o 51 l o t s In the contract Creek, the buyer agreed t o Landings plat regulation The b u y e r was i n v o l v e d i n t h e i n i t i a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f subdivision request. subdivision of the per the buyer's at issue i n Limestone " p u r c h a s e t h e 51 l o t s i n H e r i t a g e f o r $30, 000 each." I d . a t 190-91. Our concluded that that a c t i o n v i o l a t e d the county regulations. 14 2120036 GHD on the a s s e r t s t h a t the basis of the contract s a l e of the i n t h i s c a s e was property v o i d both from L a t t o f to GHD and on t h e b a s i s o f t h e a n t i c i p a t e d c o n v e y a n c e o f c o n d o m i n i u m s described and i n paragraph 14(A). We disagree. In b o t h K i l g o r e L i m e s t o n e C r e e k , t h e c o n t r a c t s t h a t were d e t e r m i n e d t o void s p e c i f i e d that s u b d i v i s i o n and received the sellers referenced approval were selling lots reference any parcel. to not yet the from L a t t o f A r e v i e w o f t h e c o n t r a c t does n o t a plat or lots within a t h a t c o n d o m i n i u m s a r e s u b d i v i s i o n s and a r e s u b j e c t t o statutes D e v e l o p e r s I I , LLC, and 13 regulations, So. 3d 390 see s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t o r map, unit. Paragraph Dyess v. ( A l a . C i v . App. n o t e t h a t t h e l a n g u a g e o f p a r a g r a p h 14(A) yield subdivision. A d d i t i o n a l l y , a l t h o u g h i t i s t r u e t h a t we have p r e v i o u s l y subdivision a However, from the p r o p e r a u t h o r i t i e s . i n one within u n r e c o r d e d p l a t s t h a t had c o n t r a c t i n the p r e s e n t case conveyed the p r o p e r t y t o GHD be d i d not 1 held relevant Bay John 2007), reference we a a l o t , or even a s p e c i f i c condominium 14(A), instead, merely established that The l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the p r o p e r t y i n the c o n t r a c t r e f e r r e d t o t h e " n o r t h e a s t c o r n e r o f l o t 3, T e r r y Cove M a r i n a Planned U n i t Development." This i s a p o i n t of r e f e r e n c e from t h e a d j o i n i n g d e v e l o p m e n t and i s n o t a l o t on t h e p r o p e r t y a t i s s u e i n the p r e s e n t case. 1 15 2120036 L a t t o f w o u l d have t h e o p t i o n procedure would and e s t a b l i s h e d t h e f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f , t h e condominium u n i t s build that to acquire, i n the future. We, e i t h e r t h e conveyance f u t u r e conveyances therefore, cannot GHD conclude executed by t h e c o n t r a c t or the c o n t e m p l a t e d by the c o n t r a c t v i o l a t e d § 11¬ 52-33 o r t h e C i t y ' s s u b d i v i s i o n regulations. II. We now a d d r e s s contract, GHD's s e c o n d and paragraph indefinite that 14(A) paragraph and t h i r d specifically, issues: that the was so v a g u e a n d 14(A) i s e f f e c t i v e l y agreement t o agree and t h a t t h e r e only an are conditions precedent t o GHD's o b l i g a t i o n t o p e r f o r m i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h p a r a g r a p h 14(A) t h a t have n o t y e t o c c u r r e d . 2 "In i n t e r p r e t i n g a c o n t r a c t , a t r i a l heed t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : c o u r t must " ' I f a c o n t r a c t i s unambiguous on i t s f a c e , t h e r e i s no room f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d i t We r e c o g n i z e t h a t " [ i ] t i s a w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e o f c o n t r a c t c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t a n y a m b i g u i t y i n a c o n t r a c t must be construed against the d r a f t e r of the contract," SouthTrust Bank v. C o p e l a n d One, L.L.C., 886 So. 2d 38, 43 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; however, t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e p r e s e n t case i n c o r p o r a t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g agreement o f the p a r t i e s : " T h i s [ c o n t r a c t ] s h a l l n o t be c o n s t r u e d a g a i n s t t h e d r a f t e r , a s t h e p a r t i e s a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t b o t h p a r t i e s have b e e n i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the d r a f t i n g hereof." 2 16 2120036 must be e n f o r c e d as w r i t t e n . See Thompson T r a c t o r Co. v. F a i r C o n t r a c t i n g Co., 7 57 So. 2d 396, 398 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; Ex p a r t e Hagan, 721 So. 2d 167, 173 ( A l a . 1998) . A c o u r t may n o t t w i s t t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m s i n t h e c o n t r a c t t o c r e a t e an ambiguity under the guise of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . See [ U n i v e r s a l U n d e r w r i t e r s L i f e I n s . Co. v.] D u t t o n , 736 So. 2d [564,] 570 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ] . The p r i m a r y s o u r c e f o r d e c i d i n g whether a c o n t r a c t i s c l e a r i s the t e x t o f t h e document i t s e l f . " I t i s w e l l established i n Alabama that when an i n s t r u m e n t i s unambiguous i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n and l e g a l e f f e c t w i l l be b a s e d upon what i s found within i t s four corners. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r an i n s t r u m e n t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w f o r t h e c o u r t t o d e c i d e . " A u s t i n v. Cox, 523 So. 2d 376, 379 ( A l a . 1988) . E v e n i f some a m b i g u i t y does e x i s t i n a c o n t r a c t , a c o u r t has t h e d u t y t o a c c e p t a c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t w i l l u p h o l d t h e c o n t r a c t , r a t h e r t h a n one t h a t w i l l make i t i n v a l i d . See W i lson v . so W o r l d Omni L e a s i n g , I n c . , 540 So. 2d 713, 716 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . ' " S o)uut h l a n d Q u a l i t y Homes, I n c . v. W i l l i a m s , thl 2d 949, 953 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . " 781 So. B o o t h v. N e w p o r t T e l e v i s i o n , L L C , [Ms. 2100413, Dec. 16, 2011] So. 3d The , trial concluding court does not explain that "[p]aragraph t o be u n e n f o r c e a b l e court, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . i t s reasoning for 14(A) ... [was n o t ] s o vague as or v o i d . " However, i n i t s b r i e f t o t h i s L a t t o f contends t h a t paragraph 17 14(A) was enforceable 2120036 because "there i s absolutely nothing agree A upon." paragraph 14(A) commencement u n i t s , GHD and careful indicates, of $1, 500, 000 pricing. to in of be used f o r the p a r t i e s plain the to of pertinent preconstruction would provide tentative reading left sales language part, of that, the condominium Lattof with floor plans, Lattof was the purchase site guaranteed against a must n o t i f y GHD be The plans, credit price c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s o f w h i c h L a t t o f w o u l d have t h e and 3 5 t h c h o i c e . upon of of 1st, the 20th, c o n t r a c t f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d when L a t t o f of i t s c h o i c e s and t h e documents t h a t were t o executed. Our supreme unambiguous court only i f one has held that reasonable "[a] meaning document emerges is from a reading o f t h e document. Wayne J . G r i f f i n E l e c . , I n c . v. Dunn Constr. Co., 622 So. Walter Indus., Inc., 2d 314 962 (Ala. So. 2d 1993)." 753, 780 Drummond Co. v. ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . GHD is c o r r e c t t h a t "'"[a] c o n t r a c t that '"leav[es] m a t e r i a l open for future agreement indefiniteness."'"'" K n o w l e s , 39 So. G r o u p , L.L.C. v. 3d Macon 100, PRS 108 is Cnty. nugatory and Greyhound Park, ( A l a . 2009) I I , L.L.C, 998 18 So. portions void for Inc. v. ( q u o t i n g W h i t e Sands 2d 1042, 1051 (Ala. 2120036 2008), quoting 587-88, 532 i n turn S.E.2d 228, v. McGowan, 86 N.C. Miller 232 (2000), quoting App. 582, i n t u r n MCB Ltd. language In simplest 359 N.C. However, t h e i n t e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s i s c l e a r f r o m t h e 14(A). 609, 138 (1987)). paragraph 607, Rose, 51 of App. v. S.E.2d 50, terms, Lattof, using the $1,500,000 c r e d i t , w i l l p u r c h a s e c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s p u r s u a n t t o t h e same p u r c h a s e a g r e e m e n t o f f e r e d t o a l l p a r t i e s i n t e r e s t e d in purchasing a c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t f r o m GHD. The language i s n o t so ambiguous o r vague t h a t i t r e l e g a t e s p a r a g r a p h 14(A) to a mere a g r e e m e n t t o a g r e e , n o r i s t h e r e a m a t e r i a l p o r t i o n o f the p a r t i e s ' We do, agreement s u b j e c t t o f u t u r e n e g o t i a t i o n . however, disagree i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f p a r a g r a p h 14(A) "reasonable time c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e trial court for with the trial 3 court's i n s o f a r as i t i n t e r j e c t e d a performance" condominium u n i t s . for GHD to begin In i t s judgment, the stated: GHD a t t a c h e d t h e a f f i d a v i t o f Sam I r b y , an experienced r e a l - e s t a t e a t t o r n e y p r a c t i c i n g i n Baldwin County, i n which I r b y t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t was h i s o p i n i o n t h a t p a r a g r a p h 14(A) was t o o vague and ambiguous t o be e n f o r c e a b l e . Lattof filed a m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e I r b y a f f i d a v i t ; t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e whether the trial court addressed the motion. However, b e c a u s e w h e t h e r a c o n t r a c t i s ambiguous i s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , see B o o t h , s u p r a , I r b y ' s " e x p e r t " o p i n i o n does n o t c r e a t e an i s s u e o f f a c t . 3 19 2120036 "4. T h e r e was no t i m e f o r p e r f o r m a n c e o f [GHD's] o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r [ p ] a r a g r a p h 14(A) o f t h e [ c o n t r a c t ] and t h e r e f o r e [ , ] as a m a t t e r o f l a w , s a i d o b l i g a t i o n i s due t o be p e r f o r m e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . "5. A r e a s o n a b l e t i m e f o r p e r f o r m a n c e o f [GHD's] o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r [ p ] a r a g r a p h 14(A) o f t h e [ c o n t r a c t ] e x p i r e d on December 15, 2008, w h i c h was t h r e e (3) years after the closing of the real estate t r a n s a c t i o n between the p a r t i e s . " The contract d i d not specify a time f o r GHD to begin construction of the condominium u n i t s , nor d i d i t s t a t e that time the i s correct that "where a c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n t o p e r f o r m e x i s t s , and no time is was of prescribed requires essence. in the ( A l a . 1992). trial contract the o b l i g a t e d p a r t y t i m e . ' " Lemon v. G o l f 265 The court for performance, to perform w i t h i n a T e r r a c e Owners A s s ' n , 611 the law 'reasonable So. 2d 263, However, t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a " r e a s o n a b l e t i m e " i s a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t and "'depends upon t h e n a t u r e of t h e a c t t o be done and a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e act.'" (quoting Gray v. Reynolds, Deupree v. 553 Ruffino, So. 505 2d So. 79, 2d 82 (Ala. 1989) 1218, 1221 (Ala. 1987)). GHD argues t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n of the condominium u n i t s i s a c o n d i t i o n precedent pursuant to paragraph to the 14(A). fulfillment of i t s o b l i g a t i o n s Jimmy L a n g d o n , an a g e n t o f 20 GHD, 2120036 t e s t i f i e d by a f f i d a v i t t h a t GHD improve the property dollars." However, construction on the r e a l - e s t a t e market. and had according had immediately undertaken to expended to d e v e l o p m e n t due "several Langdon, to the GHD million suspended collapse Langdon f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t of "[m]arket c o n d i t i o n s a t Orange B e a c h r e m a i n s u c h t h a t a p r o j e c t o f s i z e and On under type i s j u s t not the other paragraph reasonable time See (Ala. 1952). attached this financially feasible." hand, L a t t o f a s s e r t s t h a t GHD's o b l i g a t i o n s 14(A) and are due to that GHD cannot o b l i g a t i o n s by p r e v e n t i n g units. the Sims v. be completed escape from the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 256 also testified a those condominium 2d 833, 837 via affidavit t o L a t t o f ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . According 4 Mitchell Lattof So. within L a t t o f c i t e s Murphy v. S c h u s t e r S p r i n g s Lumber Co., 215 A l a . 412, 111 So. 427 ( 1 9 2 6 ) , i n s u p p o r t o f t h e argument t h a t a f a i l i n g m a r k e t does n o t e x c u s e a p a r t y f r o m a r e a s o n a b l e time f o r performance. L a t t o f ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Murphy i s overbroad. The i s s u e i n Murphy was w h e t h e r an o p t i o n e e had e x e r c i s e d an o p t i o n t o renew w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e c o n t r a c t . 215 A l a . a t 414, 111 So. a t 428-29. Tantamount t o t h e Murphy c o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s o f t h e i s s u e was i t s r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t , " i n o p t i o n c o n t r a c t s , unless e x p r e s s l y negatived, time i s always of the essence." 215 A l a . a t 415, 111 So. a t 429. Due t o i t s n a r r o w f o c u s on o p t i o n c o n t r a c t s and t h e t i m b e r i n d u s t r y , we do n o t f i n d Murphy i n s t r u c t i v e i n t h e p r e s e n t case. 4 21 2120036 t o M i t c h e l l L a t t o f , a g e n t s o f GHD represented t o him t h a t the d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d be c o m p l e t e d i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y three years. We have c a r e f u l l y e x a m i n e d t h e c o n t r a c t i n i t s e n t i r e t y . We n o t e t h a t p a r a g r a p h s 3 and 4 d e s c r i b e t h e o p t i o n s t h a t were e x e r c i s e d u n d e r t h e c o n t r a c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t GHD i t s option to purchase the property exercised and t h a t o p t i o n f e e s paid up t o t h a t p o i n t were t o be a p p l i e d t o t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e . We f u r t h e r note t h a t paragraph 5 e s t a b l i s h e d the purchase p r i c e of The $25, 000, 000, l e s s t h e o p t i o n parties $1,000,000 also of agreed, the indicates that Lattof i n turn Absent from paragraphs pursuant purchase improvement o f a s p e c i f i c price area the purchase tendered the GHD to had a l r e a d y paragraph would be price was that tendered to record to Lattof; to GHD. the aforementioned t o any o u t s t a n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n of e i t h e r p a r t y or a bargained-for of 5, The to the property language paid. allocated of the property. t h e deed detailed i s a reference fees o p t i o n t h a t c o u l d be e x e r c i s e d at a l a t e r date. I n f a c t , we do n o t f i n d any l a n g u a g e w i t h i n the of the contract four corners 22 o b l i g a t i n g GHD to perform 2120036 under paragraph construction of V i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o GHD, the 14(A) before we condominium u n i t s . conclude that regarding a i m p l i e d by the condominium 5 genuine whether a issue of reasonable contract units commencing t h e or was a material time whether for the condition o b l i g a t i o n s under paragraph fact exists performance construction precedent was of to the GHD's 14(A). III. We next address whether i n t e r p r e t e d p a r a g r a p h 14(A) plus 6% the i n t e r e s t i n damages. and such appropriate." GHD of "had the other In i t s motion relief as trial the $1,500,000.00 condominium u n i t s to e i t h e r provide towards OR the incorrectly for a summary award "court c]ourt deems in his affidavit [Lattof] with purchase to provide court [trial M i t c h e l l Lattof asserted option court when i t a w a r d e d L a t t o f $1,525,000 judgment, L a t t o f r e q u e s t e d t h a t the costs trial of [Lattof] a up to that a credit three c a s h payment (3) of B e c a u s e we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was n o t vague o r a m b i g u o u s , we w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y t h e t e r m s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the f o u r corners of the c o n t r a c t . See M c i n t o s h v. L i v a u d a i s , 979 So. 2d 92, 95 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( q u o t i n g S t r i c k l a n d v. Rahaim, 549 So. 2d 58, 60 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . 5 23 2120036 $1,525,000.00." court, (Capitalization apparently adopting in original.) Lattof's The trial interpretation of p a r a g r a p h 1 4 ( A ) , s t a t e d i n i t s judgment: "6. As o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s O r d e r , [GHD] has n o t p e r f o r m e d u n d e r e i t h e r o p t i o n o f [ p ] a r a g r a p h 14(A) o f t h e [ c o n t r a c t ] , and f u r t h e r m o r e has n o t a t t e m p t e d t o c o n s t r u c t t h e c o n d o m i n i u m d e v e l o p m e n t so as t o be a b l e t o p e r f o r m t h e $1,500,000.00 c r e d i t o p t i o n under s a i d p a r a g r a p h . " "8. the The [GHD] has b e e n i n b r e a c h o f [ p ] a r a g r a p h 14(A) [ c o n t r a c t ] s i n c e December 15, 2008." trial court $1,525,000 p l u s court awarded damages 6% i n t e r e s t a c c r u i n g determined December 15, Lattof that GHD had in the of amount from the date the breached the trial contract, i . e . , 2008. We are unpersuaded to receive an award t h a t p a r a g r a p h 14(A) o f $1,525,000 i n l i e u entitled of the c r e d i t toward the p u r c h a s e of condominium u n i t s . Lattof $1,500,000 In a d d i t i o n t o d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h c o n d o m i n i u m u n i t s w o u l d conveyed of f r o m GHD t o L a t t o f , p a r a g r a p h 14(A) also provides: "In l i e u of p r o v i d i n g a l l or p a r t of t h i s c r e d i t to S e l l e r s , as a b u y - o u t o f a l l o r some o f S e l l e r s ' u n d e r t h i s p a r a g r a p h 1 4 ( A ) , B u y e r may p a y t o S e l l e r s in cash at anytime p r i o r to the execution of pre-construction purchase agreements using the 24 be 2120036 e n t i r e t y o f t h e c r e d i t , t h e amount o f t h e r e m a i n i n g c r e d i t p l u s t h e sum o f $25,000.00." We agree with Lattof that the then above-quoted language v e s t e d GHD w i t h t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o t e n d e r t h e money i n l i e u conveying the contains no condominium language units. vesting However, p a r a g r a p h Lattof with the units. We therefore p a r a g r a p h 14(A) conclude that the 14(A) authority demand t h e c a s h payment as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e of to condominium plain language of does n o t s u p p o r t an a w a r d o f money damages t o Lattof. Conclusion Based upon t h e foregoing, we hold that the t r i a l court d i d n o t e r r i n s o f a r as i t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t d i d n o t violate s t a t e s t a t u t e s or the C i t y ' s s u b d i v i s i o n regulations and t h a t p a r a g r a p h 14(A) was n o t so vague o r ambiguous t h a t i t was effectively only an agreement to agree. However, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t as t o whether construction of the development was a condition precedent t o GHD's o b l i g a t i o n t o p e r f o r m i n a c c o r d a n c e paragraph 14(A) o r , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , whether time such performance for reverse the had elapsed. summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r 25 with a reasonable Accordingly, of L a t t o f and we remand 2120036 this cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n , Moore, and D o n a l d s o n , Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , 26 without writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.