The case is Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc., and John Soule, Appellants, v. William C. King, Clyde Patroni, and Michael Pinzone, individually and D/B/A PPK Holding Company, Inc., Chris Cadenhead, individually, Pier Associates, Inc., and Sunset Holding Company, Inc., Appellees.
The case is a 13-year dispute over the contract rights to build and operate a concession stand on a pier at Santa Rosa Island. Initially, Soule and Pensacola Beach Pier, Inc. finished first in the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, meaning they were selected as the firm of first preference with whom the Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA) would commence contract negotiations. Pinzone and his partners threatened litigation regarding the legality and/or propriety of the bid process, prompting the SRIA to cease contract negotiations with Soule and reopen the RFP process. The SRIA ultimately awarded the contract to Pinzone.
The Soule group then filed suit against the SRIA. The circuit court ordered that SRIA reinstate contract negotiations with Appellants, but that decision was reversed by District Court of Appeal of Florida in 2002.
The Soule group later filed the complaint that ultimately led to the final summary judgment against them by a lower court. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District upheld the lower court ruling yesterday.
Its conclusion: “It is difficult to overemphasize the importance, absent fundamental error, of preserving issues and arguments before asking an appellate court to reverse a trial court’s final judgment. The importance of this principle is too often not appreciated, and appellate courts are constrained, as we are here, to affirm orders which otherwise might have been reversed.â€
Read entire opinion.
