Case Explained: SOUTHEAST DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, LLC a Florida limited liability company SOUTHEAST LAND VENTURES, LLC a Florida limited liability company Plaintiffs-Counter v. ST. JOHNS COUNTY, FLORIDA a political subdivision of the State of Florida Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Counter Claimant-Appellee DAYLATE ENTERPRISES, INC a Florida for-profit corporation Third Party Defendant-Counter

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-07 Docket: 3:23-cv-00846-CRK-PDB The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to St. Johns County regarding the breach of contract claims against Southeast Development Partners, LLC, and rejected the developer’s claim that the county’s enforcement of the agreement constituted an unconstitutional exaction under *Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District*. The court held that the Concurrency and Impact Fee Credit Agreement unambiguously required the developer to pay all costs for road improvements, including any amounts exceeding the initial $15 million estimate, based on the plain language of Section 4(e) which stated the developer would “pay all costs… in excess of the Escrow Funds.” The court further ruled that Florida’s statutory tolling provisions for states of emergency did not apply because the agreement was not a development order or permit listed under Fla. Stat. § 252.363(1)(a). Additionally, the court found that any failure by the county to update its Capital Improvements Element was not a material breach as it did not go to the essence of the contract. Regarding the unlawful exaction claim, the court determined that the nexus and rough proportionality requirements were satisfied because the developer voluntarily assumed the risk of variable construction costs in exchange for development approval and public benefit credits. However, the court vacated the portion of the summary judgment finding that Southeast Land Ventures, LLC breached the contract. Applying Florida law regarding assignments, the court concluded that while Southeast Development assigned its rights under the agreement to Southeast Land, it did not expressly assign its obligations or liabilities. Because an assignee cannot breach a contract for which it has assumed no responsibilities, the district court erred in holding Southeast Land liable for the breach. The case is remanded with instructions to modify the judgment to reflect that only Southeast Development breached the agreement and was obligated to pay the increased costs. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.