WOODSIDE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. V. JAHREN
806 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2002)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Woodside (P) sued Jahren (D) to enforce leasing restrictions. The
trial court granted D's summary judgment motion, and the Florida Second District Court of
Appeal affirmed, contrary to decisions of the Florida Supreme Court and Third and Fourth
District Courts of Appeal. P sought further review.
FACTS: The original Declaration of Condominium allowed the condos to be leased for any
period of one (1) year or less, and may be leased by successive leases for periods in excess
of one (1) year without the approval of the Board of Directors of the Association. But if P
finds during the term of any such lease that the lessee has violated the rules and
regulations or the terms and provisions of the Declaration of Condominium or that the lessee
has been the cause of a nuisance or annoyance then P may so notify lessor of its disapproval
of such lessee in writing and lessor shall be precluded from extending any lease to said
lessee without the written approval of P. In 1997 owners became concerned that units were
increasingly becoming non-owner occupied. This would have a negative impact on the quality
of life in Woodside Village and on the market value of units. They amended the limit for the
leasing of units to a term of no more than nine months in any twelve-month period. A
provision was also added prohibiting owners from leasing their units during the first twelve
months of ownership. These amendments were adopted by a vote of at least two-thirds of the
unit owners as required by the Declaration. Under the new rules all leases, subleases, or
assignments of leases and all renewals of such must first be submitted to the Board of
Directors for approval or disapproval. No record owner was allowed to lease more than three
of their units at any one time. D got notice that two of their units were not in compliance
with the new rules. P filed complaints seeking injunctions to enforce compliance with the
rules. D counterclaimed contending that the lease restriction was unreasonable, arbitrary,
and capricious, and had no purpose other than to effectively ban all leasing of units. D
claimed it was confiscatory and deprived them of lawful uses which were permissible at the
time of purchase. D sought an injunction prohibiting P from enforcing the lease restriction
or, alternatively, requiring O to compensate P for the fair market value of their units. The
circuit court granted summary judgment in D's favor. The lease restriction impermissibly
'creates more than one class of ownership because it cannot be applied retroactively against
unit owners who purchased their unit prior to the date of the amendment.' The Second
District affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment and held that the lease
restriction could not be enforced because it was adopted after the respondents acquired
their units and no significant lease restrictions existed when respondents purchased their
units. P 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