Winkelman v. Toll

Decision Date13 September 1995
Docket Number93-2270 and 93-2472,Nos. 93-1128,s. 93-1128
Citation661 So.2d 102
Parties20 Fla. L. Weekly D2110 Jeffrey WINKELMAN and Janet Sternberg Winkelman, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Eugene M. TOLL, Robert Locke and Kathleen Braiman, as Last Known Board of Directors and New Trustees of Mission Lakes Condominium Association, Inc., a dissolved Florida non-profit corporation, and ICON Development Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

John H. Pelzer and David Allan Zulian of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Henry Handler, Howard I. Weiss and Bruce A. Harris of Weiss & Handler, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellee-ICON Development Corp.

Karl M. Scheuerman and Janis Sue Richardson, Tallahassee, amicus curiae for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation.

WARNER, Judge.

In this quiet title action the trial court determined that property conveyed by legal description as phases of a condominium was not subject to the recorded declaration of condominium and the amendments thereto, because the units originally contemplated to be built on the property were never constructed. Because we hold that the property was subjected to condominium ownership upon the recording of the amendment to the declaration adding it to the condominium, we reverse.

In 1980, Mission Lakes Condominium was created by the recording of its declaration of condominium. The declaration contemplated the construction of nine phases, each to be submitted by the developer by amendment to the declaration. Article XVI stated in pertinent part as follows:

This Condominium may be developed in Phases pursuant to Chapter 718.403, Florida Statutes. Phases I through VIII, inclusive, are specifically depicted on Exhibits B through I, inclusive, and each unit owner in the first phase to be submitted to condominium form of ownership shall own an undivided interest in the common elements and common surplus and be responsible for the same share in the common expenses as set forth in Exhibit K to this Declaration. Should the Developer decide, in its sole discretion, to add all or part of Phases I through VIII to this condominium, each of said Phases shall consist of the property described and delineated on Exhibits A through I, inclusive, with the number and general size of the units depicted thereon. In the event all eight (8) phases are added to this Condominium, the same will consist of a total of one-hundred, thirty six (136) units and each unit owner in the Condominium will own the undivided interest in the common elements and be responsible for the same interest in the common expenses as more fully set forth in Article V of this Declaration. All phases added to this Condominium will be completed by August 30, 1985. As phases are added to the Condominium, the impact will be to increase the number of units, and the number of persons who will be entitled to use the recreational facilities will be increased accordingly. The further impact will be to increase the common expenses; however, the number of units sharing said expenses will be increased proportionately.

....

Should the Developer, in its sole discretion, decide to construct and add units in all or part of the Phases I through VIII to this Condominium, then upon substantial completion of the construction of the units to be added in said phase or phases, the Developer shall cause a surveyor, authorized to practice in the State of Florida, to prepare a survey of the phase or phases to be added, and certify said survey as required by, and pursuant to, the applicable provisions of Chapter 718.104(4)(e), Florida Statutes. This survey shall be attached to an amendment or amendments to this Declaration and the same shall be executed solely by the Developer and recorded in the Public Records of Broward County, Florida, together with such exhibits relating thereto as the Developer determines, in its sole discretion, are necessary.

[all preceding emphasis added by trial court]

....

Nothing contained in the Article shall be construed as requiring the Developer to construct any or all of the phases or units to this Condominium; but if one or more phases are added to this Condominium in one or more subsequent Amendments, such phases will be added to this Condominium by August 30, 1985. The Developer reserves the right to change the exterior and interior design of the units, so long as the Developer owns the units to be altered.

The declaration also provided that the property was submitted to condominium pursuant to chapter 718, Florida Statutes, "as presently constituted and in effect." A part of section 718.403, Florida Statutes (1979), governing phase condominiums provided:

(1) A developer may develop a condominium in phases, if the original declaration of condominium submitting the initial phase to condominium ownership provides for and describes in detail all anticipated phases; the impact, if any, which the completion of subsequent phases would have upon the initial phase; and the time period within which each phase must be completed.

....

(4) If one or more phases are not built, the units which are built are entitled to 100 percent ownership of all common elements within the phases actually developed and added as part of the condominium.

The declaration of condominium of Mission Lakes complied with the statute. With the recording of the declaration the developer submitted phase II to condominium ownership, although it noted that the construction of the condominium was not substantially completed and that upon substantial completion of each phase, a certificate of a registered land surveyor would be recorded as an amendment to the declaration in accordance with section 718.104(4)(e), Florida Statutes.

Eleven days after the recording of the original declaration of condominium, the developer executed and then recorded an amendment adding phases I and III through VIII to the condominium. The amendment stated specifically:

2. Each unit contained within Phases I, and III through VII, inclusive, of the condominium, together with the appurtenances thereto, shall constitute a separate condominium parcel as provided for in the Declaration....

3. Article I of the Declaration is amended so that the Developer states and declares that the real property described on Exhibits B and D through I, inclusive to the Declaration [which contained plot plans and legal descriptions of all phases] is also submitted to condominium form of ownership.

4. The owners of all condominium units, in Mission Lakes, A Condominium, shall be members of the Association as provided for in Article VII of the Declaration. Each unit owner shall also own an undivided fractional interest in the common elements, the limited common elements and shall be responsible for his share of the common expenses and common surplus as set forth in Article V of the Declaration.

The amendment also noted that construction on these phases was not complete and that an amendment attaching a certificate of a land surveyor would be filed upon substantial completion of the phase. Later the developer recorded additional amendments attaching land surveyor certificates showing the completion of Phases I and II.

The developer never constructed the rest of the proposed phases by the August 30, 1985 deadline, and the Mission Lakes Condominium Association was involuntarily dissolved by the Secretary of State on November 1, 1985. The appellants Winkelman purchased Phase I of the condominium in 1985 and Phase II in 1986 from the institutional mortgagee on the project. The same institutional mortgagee executed a warranty deed conveying all of Phases III through VIII to the appellee ICON in 1987. The deed to these phases described the property by their description as contained in the amendment to the declaration of condominium, and the deed was specifically subject to the declarations of condominium and amendments thereto.

The parties operated their respective units as separate entities. The appellee built six buildings on the various phases but did not record any surveyor's certificates. Both Winkelman and ICON rented out their units.

Some two years after ICON purchased the remaining phases of the condominium, Winkelman filed suit to reinstate the condominium association and then filed an amended complaint seeking recovery from ICON for its share of the common expenses of the condominium, which Winkelman had been paying. The suit was heavily litigated for several years before ICON filed a counterclaim to quiet title and to declare that its phases of the condominium were conveyed in fee simple and not subject to the condominium form of ownership at the time of their conveyance to ICON. As affirmative defenses to Winkelman's complaint, ICON also raised laches, estoppel, and the running of the statute of limitations.

A non-jury trial was held on the matter. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that ICON was conveyed its property in fee simple, unencumbered by the condominium form of ownership, based on the court's review of the declarations and the statutes in effect at the time of the declaration. The court reasoned that under the declaration of condominium, "substantial completion of the construction of the units to be added in said phase or phases" was a condition precedent to the phases becoming subject to condominium ownership. Because the construction never commenced, the property never became part of the condominium in accordance with the terms of the declaration. As further support for this construction, the court referred to sections 718.403(1) and (4), Florida Statutes (1979), quoted above, which, in establishing the right to develop...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Jahren
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • January 3, 2002
    ...ownership interests therein are strictly creatures of statute. See §§ 718.101-718.622, Fla. Stat. (2000); see also Winkelman v. Toll, 661 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Suntide Condominium Ass'n v. Division of Florida Land Sales & Condominiums, 463 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). I......
  • McGee v. S-Bay Dev., LLC, CASE NO: 8:11-cv-109I-T-27TGW
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • March 8, 2012
    ...'Tt is the recording of the declaration in the public records that subjects the property to condominium ownership." Wnkelman v. Toll, 661 So. 2d 102,105 (Fla. 4th DC A 1995). Florida's condominium statute provides:If an action to determine whether the declaration or another condominium docu......
  • 814 Prop. Holdings v. New Birth Baptist Church Cathedral of Faith Int'l
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 2022
    ... ... extent that they conflict therewith, the statute must ... prevail.'" (quoting in part Winkelman v ... Toll, 661 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995))); ... Brown v. Rice, 716 So.2d 807, 809 (Fla. 5th DCA ... 1998) ("By enacting ... ...
  • Harris v. Aberdeen Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 22, 2014
    ...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 propert......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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