Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 7, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-437
Lower Tribunal No. 15-9538
________________
Keys Country Resort, LLC, and
1733-1777 Overseas Highway, LLC,
Appellants,
vs.
1733 Overseas Highway, LLC,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline
Hogan Scola, Judge.
Law Offices of Scott Alan Orth, P.A., and Scott Alan Orth (Hollywood),
for appellants.
Lerman & Whitebook, P.A., and Carlos D. Lerman (Hollywood), for
appellee.
Before LOGUE, SCALES, and LOBREE, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Keys Country Resort, LLC, and 1733-1777 Overseas Highway, LLC
appeal from a final summary judgment for reformation and reforeclosure in
favor of 1733 Overseas Highway, LLC (“Overseas Highway”).
The facts are set forth in our prior opinion in which we reversed the
summary judgment of reformation in favor of Overseas Highway and
remanded the case because there existed a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether the absence of the legal description of the omitted bay bottom
parcel was intentional or a mutual mistake. Keys Country Resort, LLC v.
1733 Overseas Highway, LLC, 272 So. 3d 500, 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). On
remand, following a six-day bench trial, the trial court entered final judgment
for reformation and reforeclosure in favor of Overseas Highway. In a
detailed, thirty-nine-page order, the trial court outlined the evidence showing
the omission was a mutual mistake due to a scrivener’s error.
We affirm. See Morey v. Everbank, 93 So. 3d 482, 489–90 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2012) (an appellate court “may not overturn a trial court’s finding
regarding the sufficiency of the evidence unless the finding is unsupported
by record evidence, or as a matter of law, no one could reasonably find such
evidence to be clear and convincing . . . it is not our function to conduct a de
novo review of the evidence, but simply to determine whether there exists in
the record competent substantial evidence to support the judgment of the
2
trial court”); Morton v. Smith, 183 So. 475, 477 (Fla. 1938) (“In the case at
bar, we have a situation in which the lands were described correctly in the
trust deed or the mortgage, but it is alleged that a portion of the lands that
should have been included were omitted therefrom . . . To now open up the
original foreclosure . . . could accomplish no good purpose . . . and no reason
whatever is shown for reforming the trust deed and proceeding anew to
perfect the second foreclosure.”); Corinthian Invs., Inc. v. Reeder, 555 So.
2d 871, 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“[A] legal action ‘on a contract’ to which
[section 95.11(3)(k), Florida Statutes,] applies connotes an action to enforce
a contract in the sense of holding a party to the stated terms of the contract.”
(emphasis in original)); McFall v. Trubey, 992 So. 2d 867, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA
2008) (“Statutes of limitations are not generally applied in equity actions.”);
Zaldivar v. Okeelanta Corp., 877 So. 2d 927, 931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (when
considering if an action is barred by laches, “delay rises to prejudice where
the party defending the claim establishes that enforcement would be
inequitable or unjust”).
Affirmed.
3