Cecilia Vera v. Parkwood Condominium Association, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 24, 2026
• Docket: 3D2024-2149
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 24, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2149 Lower Tribunal No. 21-23537-CA-01 ________________

Cecilia Vera, Appellant,

vs.

Parkwood Condominium Association, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Joseph Perkins, Judge.

Morgan & Morgan, P.A., and David L. Luck and Andres A. Hermida, for appellant.

Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez (Tampa) and Chanelle Artiles, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.

LOGUE, J. Cecilia Vera appeals the trial court’s final summary judgment in favor

of Parkwood Condominium Association, Inc. and Atlas Property

Management Services, Inc. (collectively, the “Association”) in her premises

liability action. We conclude the trial court properly granted summary

judgment because Vera failed to put forth sufficient evidence to support a

reasonable inference that it was more likely than not that the wastewater

backup that caused her to slip and fall inside her unit was caused by a

problem in the wastewater pipes in the common areas, which the Association

was responsible to maintain. We therefore affirm.

BACKGROUND

In March 2021, Vera was walking into the bathroom inside her

condominium unit when she slipped and fell due to water and sewage on the

floor of her bathroom. Vera filed a premises liability action against the

Association alleging negligence. She contended this was a recurring issue

and that the Association was on notice of the issue. She further alleged that

in July 2020, the Association hired a contractor to provide plumbing services

in Vera’s condominium bathroom “due to recurring plumbing issues,

including backups, which caused spills on [Vera’s] bathroom floor.”

The Association ultimately sought summary judgment, arguing Vera

could not establish that any leak or plumbing issue was caused by any failure

2 of the Association to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. It

noted that the wastewater backup that caused Vera to slip and fall inside of

her condominium unit’s bathroom could have resulted from a problem in

either the wastewater pipes that were part of Vera’s unit (and therefore her

responsibility to maintain) or the condominium’s pipes located in the common

areas (which were the Association’s responsibility to maintain). Yet, every

witness whose deposition was filed for purposes of summary judgment,

including Vera, her adult children, and the Association’s corporate

representative, all testified that they did not know the source of the blockage

that caused the backup into Vera’s unit.

In response, Vera argued there was evidence establishing that the

cause of the backup or plumbing issue was a problem in the condominium’s

pipes. In support, Vera cited (1) her deposition testimony and the deposition

testimony of her two adult children regarding prior incidents of backups from

the toilet, which they reported to the Association; (2) one work order dated

July 11, 2020 for a clog in the condominium’s sanitary stack pipes associated

with her unit; (3) her deposition testimony that she hired someone outside of

Home Depot to replace her toilets but the backups kept occurring; and (4)

the deposition testimony of the Association’s corporate representative that a

3 backup in the condominium’s sanitary stack pipes could cause the toilets and

shower to overflow in the unit.

Following a hearing on the Association’s motion for summary

judgment, the trial court granted the motion and entered final summary

judgment in favor of the Association. This appeal timely followed.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Vera contends the trial court erred in granting summary

judgment because she provided sufficient evidence to establish that the

water she slipped on was a regularly occurring condition that the Association

was on notice of. She contends this was all she was required to prove to

establish her claim under “Florida’s established transient-substance

caselaw,” citing cases such as Bennett v. Mattison, 382 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1980), Brooks v. Phillip Watts Enterprises, Inc., 560 So. 2d 339 (Fla.

1st DCA 1990), Maryland Maintenance Service, Inc. v. Palmieri, 559 So. 2d

74 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), Scott v. Florida Supermarkets, Inc., 580 So. 2d 312

(Fla. 3d DCA 1991), and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reggie, 714 So. 2d 601,

602-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Vera argues that pursuant to this case law, she

was not required to prove how or when the water came to be on the floor or

that the Association caused the condition that led to the water’s presence.

4 Vera’s argument would carry the day if Vera had slipped in a common

area. The problem with Vera’s argument, however, is that she slipped and

fell in the confines of her own condominium unit, which is not possessed or

controlled solely by the Association. See generally Lisanti v. City of Port

Richey, 787 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (observing: “The elements for

negligence are duty, breach, harm, and proximate cause; the additional

elements for a claim of premises liability include the defendant’s possession

or control of the premises and notice of the dangerous condition.” (emphasis

added)). As such, Vera could not simply rely on “Florida’s established

transient-substance caselaw” because there was evidence presented below

that while the Association was responsible for the maintenance and proper

function of the condominium’s sanitary stack pipes, Vera was responsible for

the maintenance and proper function of the plumbing inside of her

condominium unit that connected to the condominium’s sanitary stack pipes.

And because the wastewater backup that caused Vera to slip and fall

inside of her condominium unit’s bathroom could have resulted from a

problem in either the wastewater pipes that were part of Vera’s unit (and

therefore her responsibility to maintain) or the condominium’s sanitary stack

pipes (which were the Association’s responsibility to maintain), it was

incumbent on Vera to produce evidence that would support a reasonable

5 inference that it was more likely than not that the wastewater spillage that

occurred in the bathroom of her condominium unit was caused by the

negligence of the Association in maintaining the condominium’s sanitary

stack pipes. However, as mentioned above, every witness whose deposition

was filed for purposes of summary judgment, including Vera, her adult

children, and the Association’s corporate representative, all testified that they

did not know the source of the blockage that caused the backup into Vera’s

unit.

In these circumstances, to establish an issue of fact to get past

summary judgment, Vera had to carry the evidentiary burden of identifying

facts that would support a reasonable inference that it was more likely than

not that the wastewater spillage in her unit was due to a problem in the

condominium’s sanitary stack pipes rather than her wastewater pipes.

Gonzalez v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 273 So. 3d 1031, 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA

2019) (“If the moving party presents evidence to support the claimed non-

existence of a material issue, he will be entitled to a summary judgment

unless the opposing party comes forward with some evidence which will

change the result - that is, evidence sufficient to generate an issue on a

material fact.” (quoting Harvey Bldg., Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780, 782-83

6 (Fla. 1965))). Because Vera did not file such materials, summary judgment

was properly entered.

Affirmed.