Summary Judgment Standard when Written Instrument Reasonably Susceptible to Different Interpretations

In a recent dispute between a condominium unit owner and condominium association, an issue arose as to which party was responsible for the abatement of asbestos in the unit owner’s interior ceiling.  While the unit owner was responsible for the interior ceiling, the association was responsible for incidental damage caused by performing repairs to the common elements. Here, there was evidence that the issue with asbestos abatement was caused during the association’s common element repair work which required it to remove parts of the owner’s interior ceiling. The association claimed the unit owner needed to bear the costs to abate the asbestos and the unit owner claimed otherwise, each relying on different portions of the Declaration of Condominium.

The association moved for summary judgment and prevailed. The appellate court reversed based on the conflicting Declaration provisions.  In doing so, the appellate court included this noteworthy discussion on the summary judgment standard, particularly when a written document is reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, as was the case here:

“On summary judgment, the trial court’s function is solely to determine whether the record conclusively shows that the moving party proved a negative, that is, ‘the nonexistence of a genuine issue of a material fact.’ ” 

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) provides:

The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court shall state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard.

To survive summary judgment under the federal standard, the nonmoving party must “demonstrate that there is evidence upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict in her favor.”  “If the nonmoving party fails to make that showing, then the trial court should award summary judgment in favor of the moving party. If, however, the nonmoving party does demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, then the trial court should deny the motion.” 

“If the terms of a written instrument are in dispute and are reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, then an issue of fact is presented as to the parties’ intent; such an issue of fact cannot be properly resolved by a summary judgment.” 

***

“Given two conflicting but reasonable interpretations, a contract will be viewed as ambiguous at the early stage of summary judgment.”  Where, as here, the terms of the Declaration are in dispute and are reasonably susceptible to two different interpretations, then an issue of fact was presented that could not be properly resolved by a summary judgment. 

Lassen v. Dolphin tower Condominium Association, Inc., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D1514a (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (citations omitted).

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.