MIAMI — A Florida appeals court has ordered a new trial for a case involving a lease-purchase agreement between La Ley Sports Complex and the city of Homestead.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal in Miami partially affirmed a trial court decision on Sept. 12, remanded it and reversed it. In the Sept. 12 opinion, Judges Kevin Emas, Ivan Fernandez and Robert Luck noted that the case began with a lease-purchase agreement made on July 14, 2011, between the two parties.
“On December 15, 2012, La Ley filed an amended complaint pleading five causes of action: Count I fraud; Count II fraudulent misrepresentation and/or omission; Count III breach of contract; Count IV equitable lien; and Count V tortious interference with an advantageous business relationship,” Judge Fernandez wrote in the decision.
.jpg)
The city filed a counterclaim on May 28, 2014, where they alleged there was a breach of the commercial lease.
It wasn’t until December 2015 that a non-jury trial got underway in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. On March 4, 2016, the court ceased its finding of facts and conclusion of law, releasing its decision 10 days later. Both parties have appealed and cross-appealed the decision.
“With respect to the issues raised by La Ley on appeal (the final judgment on the fraud claims [Counts I and II] and the City’s counterclaim), finding no clear error, we affirm without further discussion,” Judge Fernandez wrote.
“We are unable to review the trial court’s final judgment against the City on the breach of contract claim (Count III) because the trial court’s final judgment incorporates conflicting conclusions of law,” the court decision stated.
According to the court decision, the trial court said in one part of their decision that La Ley did not prove a preponderance of the evidence, while in another section of the decision the judges stated La Ley did prove a preponderance of the evidence.
“As a result of the conflicting conclusions of law, we remand with instructions to vacate the trial court’s final judgment as it relates to Count III and to conduct a new trial on that count,” Judge Fernandez wrote.
“The final judgment is affirmed as to Count I, Count II, and the City’s counterclaim. The final judgment is reversed as to Count III, and remanded with instructions.”