Harris v. Sunset Islands Property Owners, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 April 1959 |
| Citation | 116 So.2d 622 |
| Parties | B. J. HARRIS and Paula Harris, his wife, Appellants, v. SUNSET ISLANDS PROPERTY OWNERS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Sibley, Grusmark, Barkdull & King, David P. Catsman, Marion E. Sibley and James Lawrence King, Miami Beach, for appellants.
Paul & Sams, D. P. S. Paul and Francis W. Sams, Miami, for appellee.
Appellants Harris, who were defendants below, seek reversal of a decree of the Chancellor affirming the validity of certain covenants restricting the sale and occupancy of land.
We are called upon to determine whether the covenants in question can be enforced in view of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting state action which denies equal protection of the laws.
Mr. and Mrs. Harris purchased a lot in a subdivision known as Sunset Islands in Dade County. At the time of the purchase there was of record certain restrictive covenants affecting the sale and occupancy of the property. Among these were the following:
'2. Ownership. No lot (nor any part thereof) shall be sold, conveyed or leased to anyone not a member in good standing of Sunset Islands Property Owners, Inc., a Florida corporation, Provided, however, that nothing in this covenant contained shall prevent any corporation, a majority of the stock in which is owned by members in good standing of Sunset Islands Property Owners, Inc., from owning or leasing any such property.
Similar restrictions covered all of the property in the subdivision and it was provided that they should remain in full force until 1972. When appellant Harris purchased the land the by-laws of appellee Sunset Islands Property Owners, Inc., contained a provision which in sum provided that no member of the corporation would, prior to the year 1966, sell or lease any property in the subdivision to any person 'not of the Caucasian race, or who is not a Gentile, or who has been convicted of a felony, * * *.' The by-laws further provided that 'the only ground upon which an owner or lessee of property on said Islands may be denied membership in this corporation shall be that the applicant is not a Gentile or is not of the Caucasian race or has been convicted of a felony.'
It will be seen that when Harris, a Jew, purchased the property the recorded restriction required that he be a member of the appellee nonprofit corporation. The membership application blank which contained an excerpt from the by-laws on the reverse side specifically excluded him from membership in the corporation because of his religion. With this information he nevertheless, proceeded to construct an expensive residence on the land, and with his family assumed occupancy. At this point, the appellee Sunset Islands Property Owners, Inc., filed suit to compel Harris to vacate the property alleging that he was not a member of the corporation. It should be pointed out that prior to the filing of the complaint the by-laws of the corporation were amended by eliminating the references to Caucasians, Gentiles and felons. In lieu thereof there was substituted a provision to the effect that 'the qualifications for membership in this association shall be that the member be of good moral character, that he be an owner or lessee, or one who proposes to become an owner or lessee, of property on Sunset Islands No. 1 or No. 2.' Pending the litigation, and after the aforesaid amendment, appellants, deeming themselves to be of good moral character, applied for membership and were rejected. When the matter came on for final hearing, the Chancellor by his decree indicated the view that the only restriction which he was being requested to enforce was that which merely required membership in the corporation. He had the view that this was not an unreasonable requirement and that having failed to become a member of the corporation, the appellants were subject to the restrictions. By his decree he ordered the appellants to sell their property to the appellee corporation and provided that if they could not agree on the price, then the appellants should sell and the appellee should pay an amount fixed by three appraisers named by the court. Or course, the appellants were ordered to vacate the property. Reversal of this decree is now sought.
Appellants contend that the restriction requiring membership in the corporation supplemented by the by-law requiring that in order to be a member a person would have to be a Caucasian Gentile, constituted an unlawful restraint on the alienation of the property and that the enforcement thereof denied to them the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Appellee contends that the Chancellor ruled correctly in finding that he was merely called upon to sustain the restriction which required membership in the corporation as a condition to ownership and occupancy of the property. Appellee says that under the by-laws, as amended, stipulating as the sole condition to membership good moral character of the applicant, the appellants had applied for membership and in good faith had been rejected.
It appears to us to be perfectly clear that when appellants Harris bought the land in question, the restriction, if valid, would preclude them from purchasing the property or from ever occupying it. We are aware of the fact that the recorded restriction itself merely required membership in the corporation. However, it is impossible to disregard the specific requirements of the by-laws that in order to become a member of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steuer v. Glevis
...to by the plaintiffs is void. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948, 334 U.S. 1, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 and Harris v. Sunset Islands Property Owners, Inc., Fla.1959, 116 So.2d 622. See also Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 1968, 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d The contract under considerat......