ZOLDAN v. ENTRADA CONDOMINIUM INC (2026)

This case presents a direct appeal by Appellant Andre Zoldan (“Zoldan”) and cross-appeal by The Entrada Condominium, Inc. (“Entrada”) following a non-jury trial on Zoldan's action against Entrada, arising from Zoldan's purchase of an Entrada residential unit at a foreclosure sale.

For the reasons discussed more fully below, on Entrada's cross-appeal, we reverse the judgment entered for Zoldan on his operative complaint's Count IV—conversion of property rights and remand for entry of judgment in favor of Entrada on that count. We affirm the judgment as to the appeal and the cross-appeal in all other respects without discussion.

After purchasing the Entrada unit at the foreclosure sale, Zoldan was issued a certificate of title. Entrada moved to vacate the foreclosure sale and the certificate of title issued to Zoldan. While that issue was pending, Zoldan and Entrada disputed who was responsible for the payment of assessments and maintenance fees imposed upon the unit. Zoldan's demand to inspect books and records spawned further litigation.

Two years later, Zoldan sold the unit to a third-party purchaser. Entrada's estoppel letter demanded payment of the outstanding maintenance fees, assessment arrears, and its attorney's fees. To facilitate the closing, the title agent placed $25,154.58 of the sale proceeds into an escrow account to cover Entrada's disputed monetary claims. The $25,154.58 was subsequently deposited into the court registry.

Zoldan ultimately sued Entrada in several counts, including Count IV for conversion of property rights. Entrada filed its corresponding answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim seeking the outstanding maintenance fees, assessment arrears, late fees, interest, costs and attorney's fees.

After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment for Entrada on the majority of Zoldan's counts. However, the trial court found for Zoldan on his conversion of property rights count, concluding Entrada had “exercised its dominion and authority” over the unit by refusing to recognize Zoldan's ownership and discouraging purchasers. The trial court also found for Zoldan on Entrada's counterclaim for money owed. The trial court ordered the release of the escrowed funds to Zoldan, subject to a deduction for valid unpaid assessments. The dueling appeals followed.

As stated above, we reverse the trial court's judgment for Zoldan on his conversion of property rights count. Real property cannot be the subject of a conversion claim. Am. Int'l Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So. 2d 567, 569 (Fla. 1975). We have applied that rule to reverse a conversion judgment, holding that “real property cannot be converted” and that a dispute sounding in contract cannot be recast as conversion. Palm Beach Fla. Hotel v. Nantucket Enters., Inc., 211 So. 3d 42, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

Here, Zoldan's asserted “ownership rights” in the unit are incidents of real property, causing Zoldan's conversion claim to fail as a matter of law. Thus, we reverse the lower court's judgment for Zoldan on Count IV, and remand for the lower court to enter judgment for Entrada on Count IV.

As stated above, on all other arguments raised on Zoldan's appeal and Entrada's cross-appeal, we affirm without further discussion.

Affirmed as to appeal, affirmed in part and reversed in part as to cross-appeal.

Siperstein, Caryn, Associate Judge.

Levine and Klingensmith, JJ., concur.