NEUMAN V. GRANDVIEW AT EMERALD HILLS, INC.
861 So.2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Neuman and Okner (Ps) sought review from an order which denied their
motion for rehearing in their action against Grandview (D) condominium association, alleging
that the association's rule banning religious services in the condominium auditorium
violated Fla. Stat. ch. 718.123 (2002).
FACTS: Section 718.123, Florida Statutes (2002) precludes condominium rules from
unreasonably restricting a unit owner's right to peaceably assemble. D is a condominium
association with 442 members. Ps reside at Grandview condominium during the winter months.
The common elements include an auditorium that members can reserve for social gatherings and
meetings. D enacted a rule governing the use of the auditorium in 1982, which provided that
the auditorium could be used for meetings or functions of groups, including religious
groups, when at least eighty percent of the members were residents of Grandview condominium.
In January 2001, several unit owners reserved the auditorium between 8:30 and noon on
Saturday mornings. While they indicated they were reserving it for a party, they actually
conducted religious services. Approximately forty condominium members gathered for the
services. Several members complained to the Board of Directors. The board meeting in
February was very confrontational. Seventy percent of the owners voted in favor of
prohibiting the holding of religious services in the auditorium. The Board then voted
unanimously to amend the rule governing the use of the auditorium. The new rule provided
that 'no religious services or activities of any kind are allowed in the auditorium or any
other common elements.' Ps filed suit against Grandview seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief to determine whether the rule violated their constitutional rights or was in
violation of section 718.123, and whether the rule was arbitrarily and capriciously enacted
by the Board. Ps moved for a temporary injunction alleging that Grandview was not only
preventing the owners from holding religious services, it was also prohibiting the use of
the auditorium for holiday parties, including Christmas and Chanukah, based upon its
prohibition against using the common elements 'for religious activities of any kind.' The
court granted the motion as to the use of the auditorium for religious activities of any
kind. D then amended its rule to limit the prohibition to the holding of religious services
in the auditorium. In a permanent injunction hearing, Ps argued that religious services fell
into the category of a 'peaceable assembly,' and a categorical ban on the holding of
religious services was per se unreasonable. In its final order denying the injunction, the
court determined that because no state action was involved, the unit owners' constitutional
rights of freedom of speech and religion were not implicated by D's rule. The court
determined that the rule did not violate section 718.123, as the condominium association had
the authority to enact this reasonable restriction on the use of the auditorium. Ps appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment