Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso
393 So.2d 637 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Restrictions contained within a declaration of condominium are presumptively valid and will be enforced unless wholly arbitrary, against public policy, or unconstitutional. However, when a board of directors has discretion to approve or deny a unit owner's use of property, its decision must be reasonable and will not be enforced if it is not demonstrably related to promoting the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the unit owners.
Facts:
- Hidden Harbour Estates is a condominium development where residents own their individual lots.
- The Declaration of Condominium requires written approval from the Board of Directors for any 'improvements or alterations' to a lot or the exterior of a mobile home.
- In 1975, the Board became concerned about increased salinity in the two deep wells that supplied water for the common usage of unit owners.
- In November 1975, unit owners Arthur and Helen Basso applied to the Board for permission to drill a private shallow well on their property.
- A Board member conducted a study and informed the Board that a shallow well, like the one proposed by the Bassos, would not affect the condominium's main water supply.
- In March 1976, the Board of Directors denied the Bassos' request.
- Despite the denial, the Bassos drilled the well on their property in January 1977.
Procedural Posture:
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Arthur and Helen Basso in a Florida trial court, seeking an injunction to require the removal of their well.
- The trial court found in favor of the Bassos, denying Hidden Harbour's request for an injunction.
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the trial court's final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a condominium association board's denial of a homeowner's proposed property alteration, pursuant to a discretionary approval clause in the declaration, enforceable when the board's reasons for denial are not supported by evidence showing the alteration is antagonistic to the condominium's legitimate objectives?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No. A condominium board's denial of a homeowner's request is not enforceable if it is unreasonable. The court established a two-part framework for reviewing condominium use restrictions. First, restrictions found within the Declaration of Condominium itself are clothed with a strong presumption of validity and will be upheld unless they are wholly arbitrary, violate public policy, or abrogate a fundamental constitutional right. Second, rules promulgated by the board of directors or decisions made pursuant to the board's discretionary authority are subject to a 'rule of reasonableness.' In such cases, the board's action must be reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the unit owners. Here, the Board's denial of the Bassos' well was a discretionary act. The Board's stated reasons for the denial—the threat of increased salinity, potential staining of common areas, and fear of a proliferation of wells—were not supported by any evidence at trial. Therefore, the Board failed to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between its denial and its legitimate objectives, rendering the denial unenforceable.
Concurring - Letts, C.J.
No. While I concur with the majority's conclusion, the Board's fear of a proliferation of wells if a single one is permitted is a justifiable concern as a matter of common sense, even without specific evidence. However, this general concern does not overcome the complete failure of proof regarding any actual harm, such as increased salinity or staining from the Bassos' specific well. The Board remains free to return to court if it can demonstrate in the future that the Bassos' well, or a proliferation of other wells, is causing tangible harm to the community.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a two-tiered standard of judicial review for condominium restrictions in Florida. It provides strong protection for covenants written into the original Declaration, treating them like covenants running with the land that owners knowingly accept upon purchase. In contrast, it subjects the ongoing governance and discretionary decisions of condominium boards to a 'reasonableness' standard, preventing boards from exercising their power in an arbitrary or capricious manner. This framework balances the need for stable, predictable community rules with the need to protect individual owners from unsupported board actions, requiring boards to produce evidence to justify their discretionary denials.
