Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot South One, Inc.
| Decision Date | 16 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 61456,61456 |
| Parties | COVE CLUB INVESTORS, LTD., Petitioner, v. SANDALFOOT SOUTH ONE, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
John R. Young of Hamilton, James, Merkle & Young, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.
Rod Tennyson of Powell, Tennyson and St. John, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
We have here a petition to review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Sandalfoot South One, Inc. v. Sandalfoot Cove Country Club, 404 So.2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). That decision reversed the trial court's order dismissing respondents' complaint and held that the escalation provision in a recreational agreement attached to a declaration of condominium was governed by section 718.401(8), Florida Statutes (1979), and therefore was unenforceable. That court then certified the following question as being of great public importance:
Specifically we ask the question of whether the lessor expressly consented to the incorporation of Section 718.401(8), Florida Statutes (1979) by use of the language herein set forth and also propound the question of whether the instant nonexclusive recreation agreement is encompassed by the same provision of the statute.
404 So.2d at 754. 1 We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer both parts of the question in the negative and we hereby quash the opinion of the district court.
This cause was commenced as a class action by three condominium associations on behalf of the unit owners in several condominium complexes. The initial complaint named Sandalfoot Cove Country Club, Inc., as defendant and was later amended to add Cove Club Investors, a Florida limited partnership, successor in interest to the Country Club (now a dissolved corporation). Cove Club Investors holds title to the recreational facilities and it is the lessor of same. The complaint sought to invalidate a rental escalation clause of the type addressed in section 718.401(8), Florida Statutes, contained in the recreation agreement.
Prior to 1975, United Communities Corporation built several units of condominiums. When offered for sale, the documentation on these units included a declaration of condominium with certain attachments or exhibits including a recreation agreement. The declaration submitted the property to condominium ownership and set forth the terms of the agreement between the declarer and future unit owners. Included in the declaration was a statement of intention that the declaration of condominium should be governed by not only the articles of incorporation, the bylaws of the association, but also the provisions of chapter 711, Florida Statutes, "as amended from time to time." This chapter governs the creation, organization and powers of condominiums.
The recreational agreement attached as an exhibit to the declaration provided country club services and recreational facilities to the unit purchaser and set forth the terms of the monthly charge. That fee was subject to an escalation clause tying it to the consumer price index and providing for periodic increases should the consumer price index rise because of inflation. In 1975, the legislature passed section 711.231, Florida Statutes (now section 718.401(8)), declaring these escalation clauses void as contrary to public policy.
Respondents, by bringing this action, seek to invalidate the escalation clauses in their agreements even though they purchased their units before the legislature declared these clauses void. The district court of appeal agreed with the respondents, but we do not.
Petitioner makes several arguments, but we will address only one which we deem dispositive of the entire matter. Petitioner makes the argument that though it is the lessor under the agreement it is neither the declarer nor the developer of the condominium. In fact, it maintains, it is the owner of the country club and recreational facilities which serve not only other condominium complexes but also the general public which is free to join and use the facilities. Furthermore, it did not sign the declaration of condominium and was a party only to the recreation agreement. Consequently, it never agreed to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Condominium Ass'n of Plaza Towers North, Inc. v. Plaza Recreation Development Corp.
...bound by future amendments to the Condominium Act, including Section 711.231, Florida Statutes (1975). Cove Club Investors Ltd. v. Sandalfoot South One, Inc., 438 So.2d 354 (Fla.1983). Third, we do not agree that a 1973 stipulation which settled a lawsuit involving the present parties, amon......
-
Sky Lake Gardens Recreation, Inc. v. Sky Lake Gardens Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Inc.
...held that where the declaration of condominium expressly incorporated the Condominium Act and any In Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot South One, Inc., 438 So.2d 354 (Fla.1983), the supreme court determined that there was no evidence that the lessor had agreed to be bound by changes i......
-
Maison Grande Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Dorten, Inc.
...of Golden Glades Condominium Club, Inc. v. Security Management Corp., 557 So.2d 1350 (Fla.1990); Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot South One, Inc., 438 So.2d 354 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, we must answer the certified question in the Maison Grande also appeals the district court's award......
-
Maison Grande Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Dorten, Inc.
...of Fleeman indicate that the second rationale, based on constitutional grounds, was not dicta. In Cove Club Investors, Ltd. v. Sandalfoot South One, Inc., 438 So.2d 354 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed its constitutional holding in Fleeman. The court held that a lessor was n......