Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Jahren
806 So.2d 452 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condominium declaration amendment restricting leasing rights is valid and enforceable against unit owners who acquired their units before the amendment was adopted, provided the amendment was properly enacted according to the declaration's amendment procedures and is not arbitrary, in violation of public policy, or unconstitutional.
Facts:
- Adolph S. Jahren and Gary M. McClernan owned residential condominium units in Woodside Village, which they purchased for investment purposes to lease to others.
- The original Declaration of Condominium, recorded in 1979, permitted unit owners to lease their units.
- In 1997, concerned about the increasing number of non-owner-occupied units, the Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. amended the Declaration by a vote of at least two-thirds of the unit owners.
- The 1997 amendment prohibited owners from leasing their units during the first twelve months of ownership and limited all subsequent leases to a term of no more than nine months in any twelve-month period.
- The Association notified Jahren and McClernan that their units, which were leased for terms longer than nine months, were not in compliance with the amended declaration.
- The legal description for the units owned by Jahren and McClernan explicitly stated that the properties were subject to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions of the Declaration 'and amendments thereto'.
Procedural Posture:
- The Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. filed complaints against Adolph S. Jahren and Gary M. McClernan in Florida circuit court (a court of first instance) seeking injunctions to enforce the new leasing restrictions.
- Jahren and McClernan filed counterclaims asserting the leasing restriction was unreasonable and confiscatory.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Jahren and McClernan, ruling the amendment could not be applied retroactively against them.
- The Association, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of Jahren and McClernan, the appellees.
- The Association, as petitioner, then sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which accepted jurisdiction based on an express and direct conflict with decisions from other Florida appellate courts.
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 declaration amendment that restricts leasing to no more than nine months in any twelve-month period valid and enforceable against unit owners who purchased their units prior to the amendment's adoption?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Anstead
Yes. A condominium declaration amendment that restricts leasing is valid and enforceable against unit owners who purchased their units prior to the amendment's adoption. Condominium ownership is a creature of statute, and owners are on notice when they purchase their units that the declaration governing their rights can be amended. Restrictions contained within a declaration are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity and will be upheld unless they are wholly arbitrary, violate public policy, or abrogate a fundamental constitutional right. The amendment here, aimed at promoting owner-occupancy and inhibiting transiency, is a reasonable goal achieved in a reasonable manner. The respondents purchased their units subject to the Declaration's express provision allowing for amendments and are therefore bound by them, as they have no vested rights in the status quo of the declaration at the time of their purchase. The court also held that a subsequent 'Abilities Amendment,' which exempted a non-profit leasing to handicapped persons, did not create an impermissible second class of ownership but was a reasonable accommodation required by fair housing laws.
Concurring - Justice Quince
Yes. While concurring with the majority's legal conclusion, this opinion expresses concern that the amendment deprived the owners of a valuable property right that may have been a determinative factor in their decision to purchase. The opinion urges the Florida Legislature to consider placing some restrictions on the ability of condominium associations to alter the substantial property rights of existing owners after they have acquired their property, perhaps through an 'escape' provision.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of condominium associations in Florida to amend their governing documents and retroactively apply new use restrictions to all unit owners. It establishes that purchasers of condominium units do not have a vested right in the rules as they exist at the time of purchase, but are subject to the declaration's amendment process. The ruling reinforces the unique nature of condominium ownership, where individual property rights are subordinate to the collective will of the community, as long as the community's actions are not arbitrary, against public policy, or unconstitutional. This creates a high hurdle for owners challenging amendments that may negatively impact their property's investment value, shifting the burden to the Legislature to provide any further protections.
Unlock the full brief for Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Jahren