Background
Modern Pharmacy, LLC appealed from a decision of the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, where Judge Peter R. Lopez presided. The lower tribunal case number was 20-27588-CA-01. J&J 111 Associates, Inc. was the appellee. The appellate proceeding was docketed as No. 25-2325.
The Third District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam opinion on November 5, 2026, with Judges Fernandez, Gordo and Bokor on the panel. The opinion states that it is not final until disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing. The public opinion affirms the lower court’s ruling but does not describe the underlying transaction, the contract language at issue, the parties’ factual disputes, or the specific claims and defenses presented below.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s disposition was: “Affirmed.” Its reasoning rests on the established principle that courts may not rewrite clear and unambiguous contract language selected by the parties. Citing All-Dixie Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Moffatt, 212 So. 2d 347, 350 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968), the court explained that where contractual language is clear and unambiguous, courts lack authority to give the agreement a meaning other than the one expressed. It also cited Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So. 3d 206, 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), for the proposition that a clear, complete and unambiguous contract requires no judicial construction.
The opinion connects that contract-interpretation rule to the summary-judgment standard in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a): summary judgment is required when the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Quoting Star Casualty Insurance Co. v. Gables Insurance Recovery, Inc., 346 So. 3d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), the court stated that a factual issue is genuine when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party and material when it may affect the outcome under the applicable substantive law.
Finally, the court cited Pan American West, Ltd. v. Cardinal Commercial Development, LLC, 50 So. 3d 68, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), and Dirico v. Redland Estates, Inc., 154 So. 3d 355, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Those authorities support entering judgment as a matter of law when a contractual provision is unambiguous, because its meaning and the parties’ intent present no factual issue. The opinion does not separately identify the provision construed or detail the judgment being affirmed beyond that legal framework.
Key Takeaways
- The Third District affirmed in a per curiam opinion; the public text supplies no additional factual or procedural history.
- Clear and unambiguous contract language must be applied as written, not rewritten through judicial construction.
- When contractual language is unambiguous, its meaning does not create a genuine factual dispute that defeats summary judgment.
- The opinion applies Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(a) and does not announce a separate appellate standard-of-review analysis.
Why It Matters
The decision is a concise reminder that contract interpretation and summary judgment often turn on the same threshold question: whether the operative language is ambiguous. Under the authorities invoked, an unambiguous provision leaves no factual dispute about meaning or intent for a jury to resolve, allowing judgment as a matter of law.
Because the opinion provides only the affirmance and supporting legal principles, its precise application to the parties’ agreement cannot be determined from the public text alone. Attorneys should therefore treat it as a reaffirmation of settled contract and summary-judgment doctrine, not as a detailed factual precedent.