Case Law Flashcards
12550 Biscayne Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. NRD Investments, LLC
Commercial owners purchased their units as sophisticated businesspeople. The Declaration is clothed with a “very strong presumption of validity.” Similar Condominiums without similar restrictions is not evidence of substantive unconscionability.
2000 Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. The Residences at Sloan’s Curve, Inc.
Easements granted by developer to third parties prior to, or simultaneously with creation of condominium association could not be cancelled by unit owners pursuant to statute without consent of third parties to whom easements were granted.
Abbey Park v. Bowen
In an association assessment lien foreclosure action, the affirmative defense of failure to maintain the common elements is inadequate as a matter of law.
Ainslie at Century Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Levy
Developers cannot force members to waive their cancellation rights.
Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Ass’n, Inc.
The association was unable to pursue a remedy in court for an injunction because the self-help provisions of its governing documents provided a “remedy at law”. (One of the required elements necessary to be met in order to obtain injunctive relief from the court is that there is an “inadequate remedy at law.”).
B & J Holding Corp. v. Weiss
The initial officers and directors of the developer corporation which built a condominium are personally liable for failure to make the maintenance payments required by statute on unsold units.
Backus v. Smith
A non-member of the association has no standing against the association to collaterally attack the failure of the association to abide by the procedural requirements of the Declaration of Condominium and its By-Laws.
Bailey v. Shelborne Ocean Beach Hotel Condo. Ass’n, Inc.
The Condo Act does not require unit owner approval for necessary maintenance, only material alterations. For material alterations, approval needs to happen prior to commencing. Funding is a different issue.
Baird v. Mason Classical Acad., Inc.
When a defendant invokes the anti-SLAPP statute to dismiss a lawsuit, they first need to show that the statute applies to their situation. Once they’ve done that, the burden shifts to the person bringing the lawsuit to prove that their claims don’t primarily involve First Amendment rights related to a public issue and that they have merit. In this case, Baird didn’t just communicate with government entities but also engaged with other groups, potentially disrupting contractual relationships.
Barrett v. Leiher
Reasonable, unambiguous restriction will be enforced according to intent of parties as expressed by clear and ordinary meaning of its terms; if it is necessary to construe a somewhat ambiguous term, intent of parties as to evil sought to be avoided expressed by covenants as a whole will be determinative, and only where intent cannot be ascertained will covenant not be enforced. There is no need to define all the terms.
Basically, if there’s a clear and reasonable rule or restriction in a contract or agreement, it’ll be enforced based on what the people involved clearly meant. If there’s something a bit unclear, they’ll look at what the people wanted to avoid by making the rule in the first place. But if it’s still not clear what they meant, the rule might not be enforced at all.
Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor
Provided that a condominium rule enacted by the board of directors does not contravene either an express provision of the declaration of condominium or a right reasonably inferable therefrom, it will be found valid, within the scope of board’s authority.
Bessemer v. Gersten
An association’s lien for assessments relates back to the recording of the declaration and, since acquisition of homestead status does not defeat prior lien, associations’ assessment lien rights (considered first in line since it relates back) prevail over owners’ later-established homestead rights. This is why homestead properties are able to be foreclosed for unpaid assessments.
Bishop v. Belkin
All the limited partnerships were only leasing their units and not offering them for sale in the ordinary course, they could not vote for a majority of the board of directors, turnover was triggered.
Brown v. Rice
The determination of whether a common element is a limited common element depends solely upon the designation set forth in the property’s declaration of condominium. Here, you could not separate the limited common element garage from the appurtenant unit.
Camino Gardens Ass’n, Inc. v. McKim
Provision of declaration of restrictions (1) prohibiting sale of lots in subdivision to anyone other than member in good standing was deemed void because it unreasonably restricted property alienation; (2) allowing homeowner’s association to purchase subdivision property in foreclosure by paying amount due on mortgage, rather than fair market value of property or appraised value of property, was declared void as price fixing; (3) requiring mortgagee to give notice to homeowner’s association and its members before accepting deed in lieu of foreclosure of subdivision property, was void as unreasonable restraint upon alienation.
Casa Del Mar Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Richartz
Condominium association had standing under statute to seek injunction against future acts of physical violence or threats of violence against association, board of directors, association employees, and residents of condominium after condominium resident threatened association president where declaration of condominium and bylaws prohibited any use or practice which interfered with peaceful and proper use of property by residents.
Cedar Cove Efficiency Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Cedar Cove Properties, Inc.
Limited common elements described in Condominium Act were subset of common elements and thus a common expense properly within the scope of the authority of the condominium association. If it is not clear who is responsible for the maintenance, then items fall within scope of “all other instances” that are the responsibility of the condominium association and its board.
Charley Toppino & Sons v. Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Ass’n, Inc.
Right to bring claim for breach of implied warranty of fitness in condominium construction belongs to unit owners, and right may be exercised by unit owners in aggregate through their condominium association in matters of common interest. Accordingly, a class action instituted under Rule 1.221 would be appropriate to recover damages for defects located in a unit as opposed to the common elements if the defect is prevalent throughout the building. There is a 3-year warranty commencing with the date of completion of the improvements. Period is tolled until control of association passes from developer to unit owners.
Charterhouse Associates v. Valencia Reserve HOA
Under the common law, a visitor who enters the private property of another falls within one of three classifications: a licensee, an invitee, or a trespasser. The rule prohibiting paid private trainers conflicted with declaration express allowance permitting owners invitee’s access.
Chattel Shipping v. Brickell Place Condominium Ass’n, Inc.
The association must provide written notice to all members, informing them that, on a certain future date, the association will begin enforcing the restriction. Prospective enforcement with notice, cannot be deemed “selective and arbitrary” enforcement of restriction. In other words, a republication notice defeats a selective enforcement argument.
Chotka v. Fidelco Growth Investors
Where construction lender foreclosed after original developer defaulted on loan, took title to condominium project, completed construction, and, while holding itself out as developer and owner of project, advertised and sold units to purchasers, lender became developer of project to extent that it might be held liable for performance of express representations made to buyers, for patent construction defects in entire condominium project, and for breach of any applicable warranties due to defects in portions of project completed by lender.
Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass’n, Inc.
Retroactive application of statute, that established that, in mixed-use condominiums with 50% or greater residential composition, the residential unit owners had to be entitled to vote for a majority of seats on the board of directors, was unconstitutional as applied to condominium association, which had declaration that established that the retail and commercial unit owners, collectively, had majority vote control over the board of directors and did not contain “as amended from time to time” language subjecting it to future statutory changes to the Condominium Act, under provision of constitution that prohibited enactment of any law impairing the obligation of contracts; changing the distribution of voting power would have altered the rights of unit owners in contravention of their contractual agreement.
Cool Spaze, LLC v. Boca View Condo. Ass’n, Inc.
A condominium association’s declaration of condominium, which strictly governs the respective duties and responsibilities between an association and the unit owners, must be strictly construed. Condominium association’s declaration of condominium did not authorize association to require approval of unit transfers, and thus condominium unit purchaser was allowed to transfer unit to title owner, where language of declaration of condominium authorized association’s approval of “all leases, subleases, or other occupation” of condominiums, but declaration of condominium did not use terms unit transfer, title transfer, or sale in provision governing required prior approval of association’s board of directors.
Coquina Club, Inc. v. Mantz
The potential buyer or applicant must first facially qualify for membership. Only upon meeting the basic requirements itemized on the application will the prospective purchaser be then subjected to closer financial scrutiny, thereby allowing the unit seller to make demand upon the association for a substitute purchaser.
Coral Lakes Community Ass’n, Inc. v. Busey Bank, N.A.
Florida Legislature sought to provide HOAs super priority via F.S. 720.3085, but this was an unconstitutional impairment of contract when applied to preexisting mortgages. Mortgagee, as third-party beneficiary, was entitled to enforce subordination provision in declaration of covenants of HOA.
Cornfeld v. Plaza of the Americas Club, Inc.
This case pertains to a shareholder derivative action. Cornfeld claimed that the Club wrongfully declined offer to purchase property and neglected to initiate a lawsuit against a neighboring shopping center for breach of contract. The Circuit Court appointed an independent investigator whose findings supported the dismissal of the case. The Court determined that the investigation was conducted in good faith. It also emphasized the relevance of the plaintiff’s self-interest in initiating the claim. The Club was entitled to rely on its counsel’s advice, and there was no evidence of a violation of the business judgment rule, nor were there any indications of fraudulent, illegal, oppressive, or bad faith actions by the Club or its officers.
Section 617.07401 provides that, in order to determine whether maintenance of the derivative action is in the best interest of the corporation, the corporation can proceed in one of three ways: (1) a majority vote of independent directors at a Board meeting; (2) a majority vote of a committee of two or more independent directors appointed by a majority vote at a Board meeting; or (3) a panel of one or more independent persons appointed by the court upon motion by the corporation.
Cottrell v. Thornton
Repairs that are necessary to prevent further damage to the common elements do not constitute material alterations. Consequently, a significant expenditure on substantial and necessary repairs does not automatically amount to a material alteration that would mandate a vote of the unit owners. Essential maintenance and repair tasks, even if they involve significant costs, is not treated the same as alterations or additions that change the nature, purpose, or appearance of common property areas within a condominium.
D & T Properties, Inc. v. Marina Grande Associates
The court ruled that amendments to a condominium’s annual operating expense budget did not materially alter the offering in a way that was adverse to the buyer, and thus did not entitle the buyer to cancel the purchase agreement. The increases in the budget, due to factors like property insurance and electricity expenses, were considered beyond the developer’s control and a multimedia system upgrade was seen as beneficial to the buyer.
DBPR v. Siegel
The court points out that the homeowners’ association has the authority to impose assessments on properties that are not considered condominium property within the meaning of Chapter 718. Thus, the court ruled that a homeowners’ association, which could potentially include non-condominium dwellers and had authority over properties not defined as condominiums under the Condominium Act, was not a “condominium association.” Consequently, unit owners were not entitled to elect a minimum of one-third of the homeowners’ association board members.
De Soleil South Beach Residential Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. De Soleil South Beach Ass’n, Inc.
Exception in declaration of condominium whereby condominium association could bring action for collection of assessments without obtaining authorizing vote from 3/4 of unit owners did not apply to condominium association’s declaratory-judgment action, which asserted that master association and developers structured platting and governing documents in such a way as to avoid compliance with Condominium Act; action did not seek to gather or obtain funds in form of assessments, but instead sought declaration that it alone had exclusive power to collect assessments, which was not same as suing to collect them.
