Canterbury Apartments, Inc. v. Sokol,
\nCase No. 10-21735 CACE (26); L.T. Case No. 09-7287 COCE (53)<\/p>\n
We represented the tenants of a unit of a co-operative apartment building. Prior to our involvement in the case, the apartment building management filed suit against our clients alleging five separate violations of the lease, corporation by-laws, and rules and regulations. The apartment management sought to remove our clients from the apartment and terminate our clients\u2019 certificate of ownership. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of our clients based on the court\u2019s finding that the allegations, even accepted as true, did not constitute a persistent violation of the governing documents that would entitle the apartments to remove our clients and terminate their certificate of ownership. The apartment management appealed.<\/p>\n
On appeal, we defended the trial court\u2019s finding that the governing documents simply did not allow the apartments to remove our clients and terminate their certificate of ownership for the violations alleged. Specifically, we argued that the requirement in the governing documents that the violations be \u201cpersistent\u201d barred the apartment management\u2019s relief here where none of the five different alleged violations was repeated. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, sitting in its appellate capacity, agreed. The court affirmed the final summary judgment for our client and granted our motion for appellate attorney\u2019s fees.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Canterbury Apartments, Inc. v. Sokol, Case No. 10-21735 CACE (26); L.T. Case No. 09-7287 COCE (53) We represented the tenants of a unit of a co-operative apartment building. Prior to our involvement in the case, the apartment building management filed suit against our clients alleging five separate violations of the lease, corporation by-laws, and rules…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1807],"tags":[2377,1858,2372,2073,2257,2378,2379,2380,2381,2382,2383,2384,1885,2385],"class_list":["post-2189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bresky-appellate-cases","tag-apartment-building","tag-appeal","tag-appellate","tag-attorneys-fees","tag-broward-county","tag-by-laws","tag-certificate-of-ownership","tag-eviction","tag-granted-motion","tag-law-firm-of-robin-bresky","tag-lease","tag-seventeenth-judicial-circuit","tag-summary-judgment","tag-tenants"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2189","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}