STEVENS v. CRICKET CLUB CONDOMINIUM

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 3D99-1390.

Attorney(S)

Mark Perlman, for appellant. Cole, White Billbrough, and Bart Billbrough, for appellee.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Gene Stevens, as plaintiff and class representative for the unit owners of Cricket Club Condominium, Inc., brought a five-count complaint against Cricket Club. At the time of the non-jury trial, only Counts III and V remained. In Count III, Stevens alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the Board of Directors related to false statements about new wiring and price savings for cable television service. In Count V, Stevens alleged breach of fiduciary duty concerning the misapplication of funds from a 1992 special assessment; specifically, that funds assessed to repair and resurface the pool area were instead used largely for repairing the south terrace, an area adjacent to the pool. The trial court ruled in favor of Cricket Club on Count III and found that Stevens proved misapplication of funds on Count V but awarded only nominal damages of $1.00 because Stevens did not prove actual damages. Stevens appealed the findings on Count III and the nominal damages award, while Cricket Club cross-appealed the finding on Count V.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in finding no breach of fiduciary duty by the Cricket Club Board of Directors concerning representations about cable television service (Count III).
Whether the trial court erred in awarding only nominal damages for the misapplication of the 1992 special assessment funds (Count V).
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Board of Directors misapplied the 1992 special assessment funds (Cricket Club's cross-appeal).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Gene Stevens)

The Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duty by making false statements regarding cable wiring and price savings, misleading unit owners.
The Board misapplied the 1992 special assessment funds by using them for repairs to the south terrace instead of resurfacing the pool area as stated in the assessment notice.
The trial court erred in awarding only nominal damages despite evidence of misapplication of funds.

Appellee's Arguments (Cricket Club Condominium, Inc.)

The Board did not mislead unit owners regarding the cable contract; all relevant information was made available and owners could draw their own conclusions.
The use of funds for the south terrace was justified and did not constitute a breach of fiduciary duty.
The trial court's nominal damages award was appropriate given the lack of proven actual damages.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
GBN, Inc. v. United Danco Batteries, Inc., 627 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)	Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence but determine if competent and substantial evidence supports trial court findings.	The court used this precedent to affirm that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence.
Citibank, N.A. v. Julien J. Studley, Inc., 580 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)	Trial court findings are presumed correct on appellate review.	The court relied on this presumption to uphold the trial court's conclusions.
Continuum Condo. Ass'n v. Continuum VI, Inc., 549 So.2d 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)	Nominal damages may be awarded when a legal wrong is proven but actual damages are not.	The court applied this principle to affirm the award of nominal damages despite the finding of misapplication of funds.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the evidence presented at the non-jury trial and found competent and substantial evidence supporting the trial court's findings. Regarding Count III, the court observed that the Board of Directors held a "town meeting" where competing vendors presented their offers and all relevant documents were available for inspection, negating any claim of misleading the unit owners. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of Cricket Club on this count.

For Count V, the court acknowledged that the Board misapplied the 1992 special assessment funds by using them for the south terrace instead of resurfacing the pool area as stated in the assessment notice. However, the court noted that Stevens failed to prove actual damages resulting from this misapplication. The Board remedied the situation by returning the funds and reassessing the necessary amount to repair the south terrace. Based on the precedent that nominal damages are appropriate when a legal wrong is established but actual damages are not proven, the court affirmed the award of nominal damages of $1.00.

Consequently, the court affirmed both Stevens' appeal and Cricket Club's cross-appeal, upholding the trial court's findings and damages award.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the trial court's final judgment in all respects.

The holding confirms that the Board of Directors did not breach fiduciary duty in regard to the cable television service representations, and that while the Board misapplied the 1992 special assessment funds, the plaintiff failed to prove actual damages warranting more than nominal damages. The direct effect is that Stevens' claims on Count III are rejected, and the nominal damages award on Count V stands. No new precedent was established by this decision.

Show full summary ...

GENE STEVENS, Appellant, v. CRICKET CLUB CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Gene Stevens, plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment entered following a non-jury trial. Because there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings, we affirm.

At the time of the non-jury trial, only Counts III and V of the five count complaint remained. In Count III, Stevens, as class representative for the unit owners of Cricket Club Condominium, Inc., sought compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary duty against Cricket Club. Stevens claimed that the Cricket Club Board of Directors made false statements concerning new wiring and price savings in regard to cable television service.

In Count V, Stevens, again as class representative, sought compensatory damages against Cricket Club for breach of fiduciary duty concerning various financial misdeeds. Specifically, Stevens alleged that the Board of Directors spent funds from a 1992 special assessment on items other than those set forth in the Notice of Special Assessment. With regard to the 1992 special assessment, $50,000 was assessed to repair and resurface the pool area. However, the Board of Directors had the pool area cleaned rather than resurfaced, and only $2,005 was actually used for that purpose. The remaining funds were used to repair the south terrace, an area that leads to the pool.

The trial court found in favor of Cricket Club on Count III. With regard to Count V, the trial court found that Stevens had sustained his burden of proof on the misapplication of the 1992 special assessment by the Board of Directors, but that he had not proven any damages. As a result, the trial court awarded nominal damages in the amount of $1.00. Stevens appeals the trial court's findings as to Count III and the award of only nominal damages for Count V. Cricket Club cross-appeals the trial court's finding as to Count V.

"As an appellate court, it is not our function to reweigh the evidence but, rather, to view the record to determine if it contains competent and substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the trier of fact."GBN, Inc. v. United Danco Batteries, Inc., 627 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). "Upon appellate review, the findings of the trial court are presumed correct." Citibank, N.A. v. Julien J. Studley, Inc., 580 So.2d 784, 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The record here supports the trial court's conclusions.

Before voting on and signing the cable contract, the Board of Directors held a "town meeting" at which two competing vendors explained what they were offering. All engineering reports, references, and contracts were made available for inspection by the unit owners. Thus, the Board of Directors did not mislead the unit owners, but instead allowed them to draw their own conclusions as to which cable company should be chosen.

With regard to the 1992 special assessment, the Board of Directors decided to use the funds to repair the south terrace rather than use the funds to repair and resurface the pool area. Stevens presented evidence that the south terrace was not considered part of the pool area. Consequently, the 1992 special assessment funds were misapplied, as they were not used for their stated purpose.

"[N]ominal damages can be awarded when a legal wrong has been proven, but the aggrieved party has suffered no damages . . . or where . . . recoverable damages were not proven." Continuum Condo. Ass'n v. Continuum VI, Inc., 549 So.2d 1125, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). When Stevens charged the Board of Directors with misapplying funds, the Board of Directors returned the 1992 special assessment funds to the unit owners and then specially assessed the funds necessary to repair the south terrace. Although Cricket Club did misapply funds, supporting a judgment for Stevens, Stevens failed to prove that he suffered any damages due to that misapplication, and thus an award of nominal damages was proper.

Therefore, both Stevens' appeal and Cricket Club's cross-appeal are affirmed.