← Case library
4th DCAOctober 7, 2026Affirmed in part; Reversed as to attorney's fees award⭐ Notable

Rubin v. Sailfish Point Property Owners & Country Club Ass'n, Inc.

Case No. 4D2025-1575

After a community association blocked a home sale, the buyer assigned his purchase agreement to approved residents and then sued to rescind the assignment; the trial court upheld the assignment and awarded the assignees roughly $269,000 in fees, costs, and interest under the purchase agreement's prevailing-party clause. The Fourth DCA affirmed the merits rulings and the denial of costs against the backup buyer, but reversed the fee award, holding the assignment contained no fee provision and the assignees stepped only into the buyer's shoes, not the sellers', so they could not invoke the purchase agreement's fee clause against their own assignor.

Key facts

  • Original buyer entered into a purchase agreement to buy residential property in a community association; the association blocked the sale based on its approval rights.
  • Buyer assigned his purchase agreement to approved residents and then sued to rescind the assignment; the trial court upheld the assignment and awarded the assignees approximately $269,000 in attorney's fees, costs, and interest under the purchase agreement's prevailing-party clause.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

The fee holding is a useful, transferable limitation on prevailing-party clauses in assigned contracts: assignees cannot turn the assignor's own contract fee provision against the assignor absent an assignment-level fee… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.