Rather, the “Availability of Funds” clause in the parties' lease excused the Department from its obligation to pay and perform under the lease. See Physicians Health Care Plans, Inc. v. Cook, 714 So.2d 566, 567–68 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (recognizing that a state agency may terminate a lease if the Legislature does not fund its lease commitments).Finally, we find no merit in the Bensons' various other arguments that the proviso and the Department's actions violated the Florida Constitution.
Holl. Where there is no material fact in dispute and the court has applied the correct law, the summary judgment should be affirmed. See Strama v. Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 793 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Physicians Health Care Plans, Inc. v. Cook, 714 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), Evans v. Bell, 677 So.2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). For the following reasons, we find there was no genuine issue of material fact in dispute, and that the trial court applied the correct law. [1, 2] Horizons characterizes the release in this case as an anticipatory release, and argues that Florida law will not enforce anticipatory releases, i.e., releases for uncommitted intentional torts.