Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman
309 So. 2d 180 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condominium association may enact a rule regulating the use of common elements that is reasonably related to promoting the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the unit owners, and such a rule is valid even if the regulated conduct does not rise to the level of a nuisance.
Facts:
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. is a condominium association operating a 202-unit condominium.
- The association's articles of incorporation and Declaration of Condominium grant it the power to make reasonable rules and regulations for the use of the condominium property.
- The condominium includes a clubhouse, a common element used for social occasions.
- The association's board of directors adopted a rule prohibiting the use of alcoholic beverages in the clubhouse and its adjacent areas.
- A majority of the condominium owners (126 to 63) approved the rule.
- Bradford and Evelyn Norman, owners of one condominium unit, objected to the rule.
- Prior to the rule's adoption, there had been no disruptive incidents in the clubhouse during social events where alcoholic beverages were consumed.
Procedural Posture:
- Bradford and Evelyn Norman filed an injunction suit in a state trial court against Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. to prohibit the enforcement of the rule banning alcohol in the clubhouse.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Normans, finding the rule invalid.
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with the Normans as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a rule enacted by a condominium association's board of directors that prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages in common areas exceed the board's authority when the regulated conduct does not constitute a nuisance?
Opinions:
Majority - Downey, Judge
No. A condominium association's rule is not required to be based on conduct that constitutes a nuisance; the proper test for its validity is reasonableness. Inherent in condominium living is the principle that each unit owner must relinquish a degree of personal freedom of choice for the promotion of the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the majority. Condominium communities are like 'little democratic sub societies' that are necessarily more restrictive than life outside the organization. While an association cannot adopt arbitrary or capricious rules, a rule is enforceable if it is reasonable. A restriction on the use of alcoholic beverages in a common area is not inherently unreasonable and does not need to be justified by preventing a nuisance.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'reasonableness' standard as the governing test for the validity of condominium association rules regarding the use of common areas. It significantly defers to the rulemaking authority of association boards, clarifying that they do not need to demonstrate that a regulated activity has caused prior harm or rises to the level of a legal nuisance. This precedent strengthens the power of community associations to regulate conduct for the perceived collective good, prioritizing community harmony over individual freedoms in shared spaces.
Unlock the full brief for Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman