MEEKS v. STRICKLAND (2023)

Plaintiff, Robert Meeks, and Defendants, Timothy and Cynthia Strickland, are at odds over nonpayment of a promissory note stemming from a real estate transaction governed by a FloridaRealtors/FloridaBar contract.¹ The Stricklands argued in a summary judgment motion that Meeks's lawsuit was premature as no mediation had yet occurred. They cited to paragraph 16(b), which states:

Buyer and Seller shall attempt to settle Disputes in an amicable manner through mediation ․ Injunctive relief may be sought without first complying with this Paragraph 16(b). Disputes not settled pursuant to this Paragraph 16 may be resolved by instituting action in the appropriate court having jurisdiction of the matter.

The trial court granted summary judgment, and Meeks appeals the judgment entered in favor of the Stricklands.

“It is fundamental that where a contract is clear and unambiguous in its terms, the court may not give those terms any meaning beyond the plain meaning of the words contained therein.” Dows v. Nike, Inc., 846 So. 2d 595, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The contract at issue required the parties to mediate before “instituting action in the appropriate court[.]” The contract clearly required mediation before litigation ensued.

The trial court awarded the Stricklands attorney fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2021), but deferred setting the amount until later. Like Meeks's lawsuit, his appeal from the portion of the judgment granting fees is premature. See Kelly v. HSBC Bank USA Nat'l Ass'n., 240 So. 3d 107, 108 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (dismissing attempt to appeal order granting sanctions because it addressed only entitlement, not amount).

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.

COHEN, J.

NARDELLA and SMITH, JJ., concur.