Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 78-2688

Decision Date11 February 1981
Docket NumberNo. 78-2688,78-2688
Citation393 So.2d 637
PartiesHIDDEN HARBOUR ESTATES, INC., a Florida not for profit corporation, Appellant, v. Arthur BASSO and Helen Basso, his wife, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Walter M. Meginniss of Crary, Buchanan & Meginniss, Chartered, Stuart, for appellant.

Edna L. Caruso, West Palm Beach and Tooker & Gamba, P. A., Stuart, for appellees.

MOORE, Judge.

Plaintiff, Hidden Harbour Estates, appeals from a final judgment denying its request for injunctive relief. Hidden Harbour had sought to enjoin the appellees from maintaining a shallow water well on their property. We affirm.

Hidden Harbour Estates is a condominium development containing mobile homes situated on lots owned by the individual residents. In 1975, Hidden Harbour's Board of Directors became aware of an increase in the salinity of the two deep well systems which supplied the water for the common usage of the unit owners. In May, 1975, the Board adopted a regulation that restricted lawn watering to one day per week while a member of the Board of Directors, Charles Burtoft, conducted a study of the water-salinity problem. Later in 1975, when the salinity of the well water decreased, the restriction was relaxed.

In November, 1975, the Bassos, who were owners of one of the mobile home units, applied to the Board of Directors for permission to drill a shallow well on their property. Such permission was allegedly required under the use restrictions in Article 13 of the Declaration of Condominium, which stated:

13.1. The use of the condominium will be in accordance with the following provisions, as long as the condominium exists:

a. .... No temporary or permanent improvements or alterations may be made to any lot, and no lot owner may change the appearance of any portion of the exterior of his mobile home or apartment without the written approval of the Board of Directors of the Association.

A decision on the Bassos' request was not made until March, 1976, at which time it was denied, despite the fact that Burtoft had informed the Board that a shallow well would not affect the condominium water supply. The Board had three basic reasons, not articulated until the trial of this cause, for denying the Bassos' request:

(1) The threat of increased salinity;

(2) Staining of sidewalks and other common areas of the condominium;

(3) The proliferation of more wells by other unit owners.

The Bassos nonetheless drilled a well in early January, 1977. On January 31, 1977, Hidden Harbour brought an action for injunctive relief, alleging that the Bassos were in violation of the use restrictions of the Declaration of Condominium by drilling an unauthorized well. 1 This action resulted in the judgment now appealed.

Before addressing ourselves to the merits of the trial court's decision, we will summarize the law in regard to the enforcement of use restrictions against condominium unit owners. As we opined in Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So.2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971):

Daily in this state thousands of citizens are investing millions of dollars in condominium property. Chapter 711, F.S.A., 1967, the Florida Condominium Act, and the Articles or Declarations of Condominiums provided for thereunder ought to be construed strictly to assure these investors that what the buyer sees the buyer gets. Every man may justly consider his home his castle and himself as the king thereof; nonetheless his sovereign fiat to use his property as he pleases must yield, at least in degree, where ownership is in common or cooperation with others. The benefits of condominium living and ownership demand no less. The individual ought not be permitted to disrupt the integrity of the common scheme through his desire for change, however laudable that change might be. Id. at 688.

Breitenbach involved an attempt by a unit owner to replace a screen enclosure with glass jalousies, even though the declaration of condominium prohibited "material alterations" or "substantial additions" to the common elements of the condominium. The screened enclosures were within the areas defined as common elements. Thus, even though Breitenbach's attempt to replace the screen enclosure was certainly a reasonable one and would have doubtlessly improved their unit, we were impelled to uphold the use restrictions in order to vindicate the condominium association's interest in maintaining a uniform exterior. A similar result occurred in Pepe v. Whispering Sands Condominium Association, 351 So.2d 755 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977), wherein the Court expressed the view that the restrictions in the declaration of condominium were of paramount importance in defining the rights and obligations of unit owners. The Court stated:

A declaration of a condominium is more than a mere contract spelling out mutual rights and obligations of the parties thereto it assumes some of the attributes of a covenant running with the land, circumscribing the extent and limits of the enjoyment and use of real property. Stated otherwise, it spells out the true extent of the purchased, and thus granted, use interest therein. Absent consent, or an amendment of the declaration of condominium as may be provided for in such declaration, or as may be provided by statute in the absence of such a provision, this enjoyment and use cannot be impaired or diminished. (footnotes omitted) Id. at 757-758.

See also, Wilshire Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kohlbrand, 368 So.2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).

Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman, 309 So.2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) presented the question of whether a condominium association, through the exercise of its rule making powers, could prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the common areas of the condominium. In that case, we stated the "rule of reasonableness" to be the touchstone by which the validity of a condominium association's actions should be measured.

Certainly, the association is not at liberty to adopt arbitrary or capricious rules bearing no relationship to the health, happiness and enjoyment of life of the various unit owners. On the contrary, we believe the test is reasonableness. If a rule is reasonable the association can adopt it; if not,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
61 cases
  • Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assn., S029132
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 2, 1994
    ....... LAKESIDE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. . No. ... District Court of Appeal observed in Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman ...Basso (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) 393 So.2d 637, the Florida ......
  • Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Clubdominium Homeowners Assn., S070296
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 9, 1999
    ...board decisions. (See Nahrstedt, supra, at pp. 376-377, 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 63, 878 P.2d 1275, discussing Hidden Harbour Estates v. Basso (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) 393 So.2d 637, 639-640.) made by the governing boards of community Nevertheless, having reviewed the record in this case, and in light ......
  • Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Jahren
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • January 3, 2002
    ...a very strong presumption of validity when challenged. The logic behind this presumption was explained in Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), wherein the court There are essentially two categories of cases in which a condominium association attempts to ......
  • Shorewood West Condominium Ass'n v. Sadri, 21637-0-II
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • September 18, 1998
    ...restrictions in recorded documents, but tests rules adopted by a governing body for reasonableness. Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637, 639-40 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1981). See also Board of Directors of 175 East Delaware Place Homeowners Ass'n v. Hinojosa, 287 Ill.App.3d 8......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Woodside covenants.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 77 No. 5, May 2003
    • May 1, 2003
    ...So. 2d at 456. (27) Id. (28) Id. at 457. (29) Id. at 453. (30) Id. at 459. (31) Id. at 457. See Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So. 2d 637,639-40 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1981) in which the court formulated a two-prong test for determining the validity of use restrictions. The first cate......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT