River Ranch, Inc. v. Outdoor Resorts River Ranch Inns & Cottages Condominium Ass'n (In Re River Ranch, Inc.)

188 B.R. 693, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 194, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1525, 1995 WL 628049
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedOctober 19, 1995
DocketBankruptcy No. 93-8213-8P1. Adv. No. 94-684
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 188 B.R. 693 (River Ranch, Inc. v. Outdoor Resorts River Ranch Inns & Cottages Condominium Ass'n (In Re River Ranch, Inc.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
River Ranch, Inc. v. Outdoor Resorts River Ranch Inns & Cottages Condominium Ass'n (In Re River Ranch, Inc.), 188 B.R. 693, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 194, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1525, 1995 WL 628049 (Fla. 1995).

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge.

THIS is a dismissed Chapter 11 case and the matter before the Court is a Complaint filed by River Ranch, Inc. (Debtor) against Outdoor Resorts River Ranch Inns and Cottages Condominium Associations, Inc. (Inns and Cottages) and R & R Trading Post, Inc. (R & R) (collectively, Defendants). In light of the fact that the issues were fully tried before the dismissal, this Court consented to decide the matter in spite of the dismissal of the Chapter 11 case.

Ordinarily, it is appropriate for the Plaintiff to seek a determination of the Debt- or’s ownership interest in property first, before seeking turnover of the rent derived from the lease of that property. In light of the fact that Plaintiff drafted the two counts of the Complaint in reverse order, this Court will also address the Counts in that order. In Count II of the Complaint, the Debtor seeks a determination by this Court of the ownership of a portion of property located in the development operated by the Debtor, *695 known colloquially as the Trading Post. Both the Debtor and the Inns and Cottages assert an ownership interest in the Trading Post. In Count I of the Complaint, the Debtor seeks turnover of rent paid by tenant R & R for the lease of this property. The facts relevant to resolution of this controversy, as established at the final evidentiary hearing, are as follows:

In the late 1980’s the Debtor began the development of the River Ranch Resort, a resort located in Polk County, Florida, which the Debtor owns and operates. The development of the resort included the construction of condominium units, which are sublet as hotel rooms, and various other public buildings, such as a saloon, a beauty/barber shop, and recreational facilities. The condominium units are owned by private individuals, and the Debtor acts as the managing agent for the “condominiumized” hotel rooms and charges the unit owner a commission each time a unit is rented.

On April 24,1987, the Debtor, as developer of the ranch property, filed with the State of Florida a Declaration of Condominium pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes. (Plfs Exhibit No. 2) At the time the Declaration was filed, the complex included an L-shaped two-story building. The space occupied by the Trading Post is located on the first floor in the corner apex of the building, with individually-owned units on either side of the corner space. The entire building shares a common roof, and the corner space shares a wall with one of the privately owned condominium units.

Attached to the Declaration was Exhibit A, which set forth a metes-and-bounds legal description of the property conveyed into the condominium ownership. The legal description did not specifically exclude this corner space from the conveyance of condominium ownership. In fact, attached to the Declaration as Exhibit C, sheet 2, the legal description was set forth in a diagram wherein the corner space appears to be encompassed by the description. However, also attached to the Declaration was Exhibit C, sheet 6, wherein the corner space was delineated in a diagram as “not included parcel retained by developer.”

On April 27, 1989, Debtor executed the First Amendment to the Declaration of Condominium, which included the same Exhibit C, sheet 6, this time with the corner space marked “retained by developer.” In addition, sheet 9 of Exhibit C included a larger diagram of the corner space with the typewritten legend “not included parcel retained by developer lying between units 128-124 and units 125-126.”

The metes and bounds legal description in Exhibit A was never changed by any subsequent amendments. Consequently, there has never been a separate tax bill for the corner space independent from the taxes levied on the common elements of the condominium property, and therefore the individual unit owners have paid the taxes on the corner space based on their fractional share of the common elements.

In 1992, the Debtor entered into a one-year lease agreement with R & R for the space known as the Trading Post, for the purpose of operating a souvenir and gift shop. (Plfs Exhibit No. 1) At the expiration of the lease on December 31, 1992, the lease was continued on a month-to-month by oral agreement. The terms of the written lease provided that R & R was to pay a rental fee of $250 per month plus 15% of the gross revenues from the Trading Post to the Debt- or as rent. (Exhibit A) It also stated “In addition to the fixed monthly rental fee, Lessee shall pay to Lessor all items listed in Amendment B of this contract.” (Plfs Exhibit No. 1) Attached to the lease is a document marked “AMENDMENT B” and entitled “LEASE PERCENTAGE OF SALES” wherein four items are listed. Those items are as follows:

1. THE $250.00 IS FOR THE ELECTRIC BILL
2. FIFTEEN PERCENTAGE (15%) WILL BE PAID ON GROSS SALES EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING:
A. FILM — PAID AT 30% OF GROSS PROFIT
B. SALES ITEMS — PAID AT 30% OF GROSS PROFIT
3. ALL ORA RIVER RANCH PURCHASES WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM *696 THE RENT DUE IN THAT MONTH (10% DISCOUNT)
4. VAN PAYMENTS WILL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE RENT AT $500.00 EACH MONTH UNTIL FULL PRICE ($3,500) IS PAID

The Trading Post shares an electric meter with Inns and Cottages, which measures both the electricity used by the Trading Post and the electricity supplied to the common areas of the condominium/hotel units. The charge for electricity from this meter is billed to Inns and Cottages. The Debtor collected $250 a month from R & R for electricity consumption, and applied that money as a credit to a separate Inns and Cottages account for a second electric meter which is shared by the Debtor and Inns and Cottages for other areas of the resort property. The Lease also provided that R & R was responsible for any repairs made within the shop premises except for the roof, exterior walls, and structural components of the building were to be maintained by the Debtor (Plfs Exhibit No. 1).

On January 28, 1994, Inns and Cottages, acting as a representative for the individual unit owners, sent a letter to R & R, stating that R & R did not have a valid lease with the Debtor based on the assertion that the Debtor does not own the space occupied by the Trading Post. Inns and Cottages further asserted that R & R should either negotiate a lease with Inns and Cottages, or vacate the premises within 45 days. Subsequently, R & R commenced payment of all rental proceeds into a special account pending a decision as to the ownership of the corner space and entitlement to the rental proceeds by this Court.

Based on the foregoing facts, established by the record, it is the contention of Inns and Cottages that the Trading Post parcel was submitted to condominium ownership and became part of the common elements and as such is owned by the unit owners collectively. This would make the oral agreement between R & R and Debtor invalid and therefore all rents collected from R & R rightly belongs to Inns and Cottages as a part of the common assets, to be used to offset common expenses.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kunica v. St. Jean Financial, Inc.
233 B.R. 46 (S.D. New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 B.R. 693, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. B 194, 1995 Bankr. LEXIS 1525, 1995 WL 628049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/river-ranch-inc-v-outdoor-resorts-river-ranch-inns-cottages-flmb-1995.