Harris v. Aberdeen Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 4D12–1435.,4D12–1435.
• Citation: 135 So.3d 365
• Parties: Leslie K. HARRIS, Appellant, v. ABERDEEN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Aberdeen Golf & Country Club, Inc., and Bristol Lakes Homeowners Association, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

135 So.3d 365

Leslie K. HARRIS, Appellant,

v.ABERDEEN PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Aberdeen Golf & Country Club, Inc., and Bristol Lakes Homeowners Association, Appellees.

No. 4D12–1435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 22, 2014.

Donna Greenspan Solomon of Solomon Appeals, Mediation & Arbitration, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant Leslie K. Harris.

Kristen A. Tajak of Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for appellee Aberdeen Property Owners Association, Inc.

Robert Rivas of Sachs Sax Caplan, P.L., Tallahassee, for appellee Aberdeen Golf & Country Club, Inc.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

FORST, J.

We grant the Motions for Rehearing filed, respectively, by Aberdeen Property Owners Association and Aberdeen Golf & Country Club,¹ withdraw our previously issued opinion dated August 21, 2013, and replace it with the following:

The Appellant, Leslie Harris (“Harris”), challenges the final summary judgment entered by the trial court on her action for declaratory relief. The court's ruling was based on the statute of limitations. We reverse the final summary judgment to the extent that it found Harris's claim for declaratory relief was barred by the statute of limitations. We otherwise affirm.

In 2006, Harris took title to property in Bristol Lakes, a residential community in the Aberdeen development. Aberdeen Property Owners Association (“Aberdeen POA”) is the master association for the Aberdeen development, while Bristol Lakes Homeowners Association (“Bristol Lakes HOA”) is the homeowners association for Bristol Lakes. At the time Harris took title, the governing documents of Bristol Lakes HOA, as amended in November of 2004 and recorded in December of 2004, did not require membership in the Aberdeen Golf & Country Club (“Aberdeen Club”). However, Aberdeen POA's governing documents, as amended and recordedin June of 2004, did require mandatory membership. Because of this conflict, Bristol Lakes HOA sued Aberdeen POA in 2005. Aberdeen Club intervened in the suit.

In 2010, Aberdeen Club and Bristol Lakes HOA entered into a settlement agreement which provides for non-fee, non-privileges membership by Bristol Lakes homeowners. It also contains a provision that appears to require homeowners who took title after October 30, 2004 and who had not joined Aberdeen Club or paid club dues to retroactively join the Club as of the date they took title and to pay, in increments, fees that had accrued from the date they took title to the date of the settlement agreement.²

Subsequently, in 2010, Harris brought suit against Aberdeen POA, Aberdeen Club, and Bristol Lakes HOA, seeking declaratory relief regarding membership in the Club. Her amended complaint contains three counts. Count I is for declaratory relief, and requests clarification as to whether Harris is required to join the Club and pay all fees and dues from 2006 onward. Count I also asks the trial court to “declare the mandatory membership amendment improperly enacted ....” Count II alleges that Bristol Lakes HOA breached its fiduciary duty by entering into the settlement agreement. Count III requests supplemental relief if declaratory relief is granted, including injunctive relief.

In its answer, Aberdeen POA raised the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. Harris filed a motion for summary judgment, apparently seeking a ruling in her favor on the defense. Aberdeen POA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The court entered a final summary judgment in favor of Aberdeen POA, in which the court found that the five-year limitations period applied under section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), that the cause of action accrued in 2004 when Aberdeen POA's mandatory membership amendment was recorded, and that Harris's claim was brought outside of the limitations period.

On appeal, Harris raises two issues, but only one has merit. Harris argues the court erred in finding the limitations period started running when the Aberdeen POA amendment was recorded. Harris maintains the cause of action did not accrue until she took title to property affected by the amendment, on October 24, 2006, less than four years prior to her filing her complaint on October 4, 2010.

“Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fredrick v. N. Palm Beach Cnty. Improvement Dist., 971 So.2d 974, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). “The standard of review governing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment posing a pure question of law is de novo.” Major League Baseball v. Morsani, 790 So.2d 1071, 1074 (Fla.2001); see also Briggs v. Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina, 9 So.3d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (reviewing de novo a trial court's entry of summary judgment based on statute of limitations).

The parties agreed below to the applicability of section 95.11(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides for a limitations period of five years for “[a] legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument[.]” We agree this section applies to Harris's complaint. Thus, the issue for this court is when the cause of action accrued. See§ 95.031(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). The trial court entered summary judgment on Counts I and III.³ Count I requested declaratory relief and also challenged the validity of the mandatory membership amendment itself; Count III requested supplemental relief pursuant to sections 86.011, 86.021 and 86.061, Florida Statutes (2010). Aberdeen POA argues that the limitations period began to run, not just for Harris, but for anyone who might at some point challenge the mandatory membership amendment, at the time the amendment was recorded in 2004.

To the extent that Harris challenges the validity and the enactment of the mandatory membership amendment, we agree with Aberdeen POA that the statute of limitations with respect to such a challenge began to run from the 2004 date the amendment was recorded in the public records. See Fredrick, 971 So.2d at 979–80 (holding the statute of limitations on a challenge to municipal assessments imposed for expansion of a road began to run either from the date the assessments were created or the date they were approved); Keenan v. City of Edgewater, 684 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (holding that a challenge to a resolution imposing special assessments for the purpose of construction of a water and sewer treatment plant accrued when the resolution was passed); see also Winkelman v. Toll, 661 So.2d 102, 107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (noting that Florida has a notice-type recording statute, which functions to give “notice to the world” that a property is subject to any properly recorded provisions and regulations). Accordingly, any challenge to the validity/enactment of the amendment itself is barred by the applicable statut...