Thiess v. Island House Association, Inc.
311 So. 2d 142 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida condominium law, an owner's proportionate share of common expenses and common surplus, as defined in the original declaration, cannot be altered by a majority vote of unit owners without the individual consent of the affected unit owner, unless the original declaration explicitly provides otherwise.
Facts:
- Island House is a beachfront residential condominium in Sarasota County, Florida, comprising 73 units: 38 one-story villas and 35 high-rise apartments.
- The original Declaration of Condominium specified that each of the 73 units held an equal, one-seventy third undivided share in the common elements and was equally responsible for common expenses and entitled to an equal share of common surplus.
- By 1969, the Island House Association, a non-profit corporation consisting of property owners, had assumed management of Island House from the developer.
- In 1969, numerous leaks, particularly in the high-rise apartment buildings, caused serious water damage, necessitating $50,000 for urgent repairs.
- The villa unit owners, who were a majority, did not wish to bear an equal share of the cost for repairing the apartment building roofs.
- The Association proposed an amendment to the declaration to change the common expense and common surplus shares for each unit to reflect its pro rata assessed value compared to the total assessed value of all units.
- This amendment was approved by more than fifty-one percent of the unit owners, and a $50,000 assessment was levied according to the new proportions.
- Henry W. and Frances E. Thiess, who owned an apartment unit, refused to pay the assessment based on the new proportions.
- Separately, in 1971, the Association approved another amendment by majority vote, designating washers and dryers located in hallways serving two apartment units on each high-rise floor for the exclusive use of those apartment owners, with sole responsibility for their maintenance shifted to those apartment owners. Previously, these were common elements, while villas shared a single communal washroom.
Procedural Posture:
- The Island House Association initiated a lawsuit in the lower court to enforce the assessment against Henry W. and Frances E. Thiess.
- Henry W. and Frances E. Thiess challenged the validity of both amendments (the common expense reallocation and the laundry machine designation).
- The lower court, after taking testimony, ruled that both amendments were valid.
- Henry W. and Frances E. Thiess (appellants) appealed the lower court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second 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:
Does a condominium association's amendment to its declaration, approved by a majority vote, validly change a unit owner's proportionate share of common expenses or assign exclusive use and sole maintenance responsibility for previously common elements without the individual owner's consent, where the original declaration did not provide for such changes?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, the amendments did not validly change the unit owners' proportionate share of common expenses or assign exclusive use and sole maintenance responsibility for previously common elements without the individual owner's consent. The court held that Florida Statute § 711.10(3) precludes changing any "condominium parcel" without the consent of the record owner. The definition of a condominium parcel includes a unit and an undivided share in the common elements. Florida Statute § 711.04 provides that an undivided share in the common surplus passes as an appurtenance to the unit. The court reasoned that since common surplus is created by common expenses, if a share of common surplus cannot be changed without consent, it logically follows that a share of common expenses also cannot be changed without consent. Mr. and Mrs. Thiess had a right to rely on the one-seventy third proportionate obligation stated in the original Declaration of Condominium when they purchased their unit. Allowing such changes by majority vote without individual consent would place minority unit owners at the mercy of the majority. This reasoning also applied to the laundry machine amendment, as the machines were common elements, and shifting their maintenance entirely to apartment owners without their consent effectively altered their share of common expenses, regardless of the newly granted exclusive use.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent protecting the vested property rights of condominium unit owners, particularly minority owners, against unilateral alterations of fundamental financial obligations by a simple majority vote. It clarifies that an owner's proportionate share of common expenses is an integral component of their condominium parcel, analogous to their share of common surplus, and thus cannot be changed without their explicit consent unless the original declaration expressly permits such modification. The decision reinforces the principle that condominium declarations are akin to contracts, and foundational terms upon which owners rely at purchase are not easily amended, ensuring stability in property ownership and financial responsibilities within condominium associations.
