Montecristi Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hickey

• Decision Date: 30 December 1981
• Docket Number: 79-134 and 79-135,Nos. 79-118,s. 79-118
• Citation: Montecristi Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Hickey, 408 So.2d 671 (Fla. App. 1981)
• Parties: MONTECRISTI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Lawrence J. HICKEY, et ux., and Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., et al., Appellees. CRYSTAL LAKE VILLAS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Lawrence J. HICKEY, et ux., and Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., et al., Appellees. Joseph DEPASQUALE, Appellant, v. Lawrence J. HICKEY, et ux., Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., et al., PercyRosemurgy and Jane Rosemurgy, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 671

408 So.2d 671

MONTECRISTI CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v.Lawrence J. HICKEY, et ux., and Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., et al., Appellees.

CRYSTAL LAKE VILLAS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v.Lawrence J. HICKEY, et ux., and Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., et al., Appellees.

Joseph DEPASQUALE, Appellant, v.Lawrence J. HICKEY, et ux., Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., et al., PercyRosemurgy and Jane Rosemurgy, Appellees.

Nos. 79-118, 79-134 and 79-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 30, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1982.

Howard L. Conklin of Tripp & Conklin, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant, Montecristi Country Club Apartments, Inc.

William A. Solien, Lighthouse Point, for appellant, Joseph DePasquale.

Kenneth R. Mikos of Devitt, Friedrich, Blackwell, Mikos & Ridley, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant, Crystal Lake Villas Association, Inc.

John R. Young, of Hamilton, James, Merkle & Young, West Palm Beach, for appellees, Rosemurgy.

BERANEK, Judge.

These consolidated appeals grow out of complex litigation in a long-standing condominium recreational fee dispute.The controversy originated in a class action filed initially in 1971.Plaintiffs in the original action were residents of the Crystal Lake Subdivision.These owners of individual and condominium units brought a class action against various parties alleged to be responsible for the maintenance and management of Crystal Lago Beach Club, a recreational facility which the residents and condominium entities in Crystal Lakes used.The action sought termination of certain covenants requiring recreational fee payments.It also sought a declaratory decree as to various rights and duties between the parties.Defendants in this initial action filed various motions to dismiss questioning the propriety of the case as a class action.These motions were denied and the defendants filed answers, counterclaims and crossclaims.The defendants, so far as necessary for the purposes of this case, were the developer of the Crystal Lakes Subdivision, Robert Sullivan, and three corporations, Crystal Lake Development Corp., Crystal Lake Apartments, Inc., and Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc.Mr. and Mrs. Rosemurgy, the owners of the land used for recreational purposes, were also sued as defendants.

A controversy arose between Robert Sullivan and Rosemurgy concerning which party was entitled to collect and receive the proceeds derived from the recreational fees charged on the Crystal Lake operation.This controversy became involved in the litigation and after substantial pretrial activity and discovery a non-jury trial and certain stipulations resulted in the entry of a partial final judgment on November 20, 1973.This partial final judgment provided in part that Rosemurgy would be the party entitled to collect rents from the plaintiff class members on the recreational facility and that Rosemurgy had the responsibility to maintain these recreational facilities.This partial final judgment retained jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter for the purpose of entering such further orders as might be necessary to properly implement the judgment.No appeal was attempted from the judgment of November 20, 1973, and no party to the present appeal contests the procedure or the judgment.

Approximately one year and four months after the initial judgment, Rosemurgy filed a document entitled "Motion for Declaratory Relief."This motion, which was eventually treated as a complaint for declaratory decree, sought a declaration that Rosemurgy was entitled to collect escalated recreational fees from the living units within Crystal Lakes Subdivision based upon an increase in the cost of living as reflected by the wholesale price index of all commodities published by the United States Department of Labor.Rosemurgy alleged that its entitlement to escalated recreational fees was supported by the court's own prior partial final judgment and by the terms and conditions of various recorded reservations and restrictive covenants between the parties.The individual unit owners living in Crystal Lakes Subdivision were represented by the Crystal Lake Villas Association, the 4100 Condominium Association, the Montecristi Condominium Association, and the Crystal Lake 4251 Condominium Association.Each of these condominium associations had been a class plaintiff in the initial suit and represented various unit owners living within the areas in question.In addition to the four condominium associations, Rosemurgy sought a declaration against an individual named Joseph DePasquale who was alleged to own an apartment complex in the Crystal Lakes Subdivision.Mr. DePasquale was also alleged to be responsible for escalated recreational charges.

The condominium associations and Mr. DePasquale filed motions to dismiss directed at the "Motion for Declaratory Relief" on various grounds including jurisdictional arguments.The trial court concluded that jurisdiction over the unit owners was proper via the Associations.The motions to dismiss were denied and an interlocutory appeal was taken to this court which affirmed by a decision issued February 6, 1976.The appellants on the interlocutory appeal were the four condominium associations.

We note in passing that there have been various peripheral issues and parties throughout this litigation.We here describe and deal with only so much of the controversy as necessary to the resolution of the present appeals.

By pretrial order of May 19, 1977the trial court held that the Motion for Declaratory Relief should be considered as a formal Complaint for Declaratory Relief.The condominium associations and Mr. DePasquale filed answers, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims.Basically the unit owners, through their representatives, sought to avoid or cancel the escalated recreational fees.

Eventually a trial occurred and resulted in the final judgment of August 22, 1978, which is the subject of the instant appeal.The final judgment discloses that Rosemurgy, by stipulation of the parties, presented a prima facie case in support of the complaint for declaratory decree.This prima facie case was presented to the court without a jury.At that point, a jury was impaneled for the purpose of answering some thirty-three (33) separate factual questions bearing upon the issues raised in the answers, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims of the condominium associations.The claims as to Joseph DePasquale were not submitted to the jury but by stipulation were considered by the court essentially on a stipulated record supplemented by certain evidence.The court eventually issued a final...