Angora Enterprises, Inc. v. Cole, s. 61378
| Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | 61396,Nos. 61378,s. 61378 |
| Citation | 439 So.2d 832 |
| Parties | ANGORA ENTERPRISES, INC., etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Benjamin COLE et ux., et al., Respondents. Joseph KOSOW, Petitioner, v. Benjamin COLE et ux., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert S. Levy, West Palm Beach, and Joel D. Eaton of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, Miami, for Angora, et al.
Chesterfield Smith, Miami, Steven D. Merryday, Tampa, and Michael L. Rosen, Tallahassee, of Holland & Knight, and Gerald Mager and Maurice M. Garcia of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick, Schneider and Mager, Hollywood, for Kosow.
Mark B. Schorr and Alan S. Becker of Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.
This is a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Cole v. Angora Enterprises, 403 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). That decision concerned the enforceability of an escalation clause in a recreational lease attached to a declaration of condominium, and other issues relating to condominiums. The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part and then certified the following questions:
(1) Whether the lessor expressly consented to the incorporation of Florida Statute 718.401(4) into the terms of the contract.
(2) Whether the rent escalation clause is rendered unenforceable.
(3) Whether the assignment and sale of the long term lease in exchange for a purchase money mortgage permits of the disbursement of funds from the registry of the court to pay said purchase money mortgage and
(4) Whether the condominium association and its unit owners may at this stage state a cause of action under the facts of this case for breach of fiduciary duty and self dealing.
403 So.2d at 1014. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution.
We hereby affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons set forth herein.
Petitioners are Angora Enterprises, developer of a condominium and original lessor under a recreational lease, and American Capital Corporation (Viking), the parent corporation of Angora, and Joseph Kosow, the present owner and lessor of the leased property. Respondents Cole, et al., are owners of condominium units and the condominium association which operates those condominiums.
Prior to 1975, Angora Enterprises developed the Lakeside Village condominium complex. Although the developer sold the individual units outright, it retained title to a certain portion of the property and developed it as a recreational facility. Persons purchasing units in the condominium received a copy of the declaration of condominium with the lease for use of the recreational facilities attached to it. That document bound each unit member upon purchasing a condominium unit and becoming a member of the association to pay a proportional share of the rent on the recreational facilities. A clause in the lease called for an escalation in the rent every five years based on an increase in the cost of living index.
This controversy centers around the escalation clauses in eleven recreational leases. Begun in 1975, the action alleged violations of both the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and Condominium Act, and challenged the validity of the escalation clauses. It was coupled with a motion to pay the rent into the registry of the court as provided by section 718.401, Florida Statutes (1977). The trial court dismissed the action and, while an appeal was pending, Angora assigned the lease to Kosow who assumed the existing institutional mortgage and gave back to Angora a purchase money mortgage for the balance of the sale price. The Fourth District Court affirmed in part and reversed in part. Cole v. Angora Enterprises, 370 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
The complaint was then refiled along with another motion for leave to deposit rent into the registry. Petitioner Kosow sought disbursement of the funds to make payment on the mortgage under section 718.401(4), Florida Statutes (1977). This motion was granted over respondents' objection that it was not the type of mortgage contemplated by the statute. Respondents appealed this order. The trial court again dismissed the complaint and awarded attorneys' fees to the petitioner. The district court of appeal consolidated review of this order and the review of the order to disburse funds. It then decided the cause and certified the questions as being of great public importance. We will respond to the questions in order.
First, we are asked to decide whether or not the petitioner lessor expressly consented to the incorporation of section 718.401(4), Florida Statutes (1977), into the terms of the contract by virtue of the language in the declaration of condominium. That language set forth in the submission section of the declaration reads as follows:
ANGORA ENTERPRISES, INC. ... hereby states and declares that said realty, together with improvements thereon, is submitted to Condominium ownership, pursuant to the Condominium Act of the State of Florida, F.S. 711 et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "Condominium Act"), and the provisions of said Act are hereby incorporated by reference and included herein thereby, ....
....
(Subsection G of Article I defines condominium act as follows:)
Condominium Act, means and refers to the Condominium Act of the State of Florida (F.S. 711 Et Seq.) as the same may be amended from time to time.
(Emphasis added).
Further on in the declaration we find specific references to the attached long term-lease which is "attached to this Declaration and made a part thereof." The declaration is signed by the developer and the condominium association, the same two parties who signed the lease. The lease also refers back to the declaration and not only sets the monthly fee for use of the recreational facilities, but provides for a first lien on the unit owner's property should that unit owner fail to make the monthly rental payment.
The lessor argues that these are separate documents, each standing alone, but to adopt that rationale is to ignore the realities of the situation. And to say that the lessor who in his corporate capacity was both the developer and the management firm, did not agree to the terms of declaration is to refuse to see what is plainly written in black and white.
Consequently, we agree with the district court that this case as to the rent deposit statute is controlled by our decision in Century Village, Inc. v. Wellington, E, F, K, L, H, J, M, & G, Condominium Association, 361 So.2d 128 (Fla.1978), that the parties intended to be bound by future amendments to the condominium act and as such section 718.401(4) is applicable and enforceable under the facts of the instant case.
It logically follows that section 718.401(8), the statute that declares escalation clauses in recreation or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Fairfax Village Condo. IV, 87-773.
...§ 45-1853(c) into the terms of their agreement "by virtue of the language in the [condominium instruments]." Angora Enterprises, Inc. v. Cole, 439 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla. 1983). Generally, in the absence of a provision expressly incorporating future amendments to a statute, the parties will no......
-
Condominium Ass'n of Plaza Towers North, Inc. v. Plaza Recreation Development Corp.
...of condominium or the subject long-term lease by binding themselves to any future amendments to the Condominium Act. Angora Enters. v. Cole, 439 So.2d 832 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 927, 104 S.Ct. 1710, 80 L.Ed.2d 183 (1984); Century Village, Inc. v. Wellington, E, F, K, L, H, J, M ......
-
In re Jimenez
...Ltd. v. Saint Johns Northwest Residential Ass'n, Inc., 56 So.3d 126, 128 n. 3 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 5th 2011) (citing Angora Enters., Inc. v. Cole, 439 So.2d 832 (Fla.1983)). 22. Doc. No. 131, Exhibit 1. 23.See Coral Lakes Comm. Ass'n, Inc. v. Busey Bank, N.A., 30 So.3d 579, 584 (Fla.Dist.Ct.Ap......
-
Island Manor Apartments of Marco Island, Inc. v. Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes, 87-324
...would be incorporated into the condominium declaration as an amendment thereto. The appellees, relying upon Angora Enterprises, Inc. v. Cole, 439 So.2d 832 (Fla. 1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 927, 104 S.Ct. 1710, 80 L.Ed.2d 183 (1984); Halpern v. Retirement Builders, Inc., 507 So.2d 622 (Fl......
-
Chapter 9-4 Post-Foreclosure
...the definitions therein contained, are adopted and included herein by express reference")).[71] See Angora Enters., Inc. v. Cole, 439 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla.1983); Cohn v. Grand Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 62 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 2011); Sans Souci v. Div. of Fla. Land Sales & Condos., Dep't of Bus......
-
Chapter 9-4 Post-Foreclosure
...the definitions therein contained, are adopted and included herein by express reference")).[67] See Angora Enters., Inc. v. Cole, 439 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla.1983); Cohn v. Grand Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 62 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 2011); Sans Souci v. Div. of Fla. Land Sales & Condos., Dep't of Bus......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.5 • SUBMISSION CLAUSE
...not permit those leases to be considered as independent. See Cole v. Angora Enters., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), aff'd, 439 So. 2d 832 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 927 (1984); Waterford Point Condo. Apts., Inc. v. Fass, 402 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hovnanian Flor......