Opera Tower adv. Weaver
In October 2004, when the real estate market was sizzling, numerous Buyers entered into Purchase and Sale Agreements to purchase a condominium in the Bay-front condominium high rise called Opera Tower. The condominium building is now substantially complete. The real estate market has taken a turn for the worse, and the Plaintiffs desperately looked for a way out of their contractual obligations.
In an oft cited opinion the Federal District Court Judge ruled that the complaint failed to state a claim and a matter of law and the buyers were not entitled to a refund of their deposits. This was one of the first cases favoring developers contracts and determining that Under ILSA, only an “untrue statement of material fact” is actionable. The same is true for section 718.506 -- only a “false or misleading” “material statement or information” is actionable.
The court also determined that Buyers cannot establish a fundamental elements of their ILSA and Chapter 718 claims -- the requirement that they reasonably relied upon the language in the sales brochure in purchasing their condominium.
Liquidated damages case
This case concerns a buyer’s repeated breaches over a series of seven contracts to purchase a multimillion-dollar condominium building then in development near the waterfront in downtown Miami in 2007. The sale of this condominium development was a complex commercial real estate transaction among sophisticated parties, with the buyer represented by sophisticated counsel. Despite having negotiated and executed the seven contracts, several of which were necessitated by the buyer's preceding breaches, the buyer failed to close and simply walked away from the South Florida condominium development in December 2007 leaving $114,500,000 in deposits behind.
The Trial Court rejected the buyer’s Johnny-come-lately claim and, in a three-page opinion, dismissed the action with prejudice. That buyer,, appealed the Trial Court's dismissal, insisting that Plaintiff is entitled to the return of funds properly retained by the Seller.
Plaintiff incorrectly contended that there was a single contract in which $114,500,000 were paid as deposits. We argued and prevailed because there was not one contract, but seven, notwithstanding the label of amendments to contracts. The amendments actually constituted new contracts requiring additional deposits.