284 So.3d 534
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Miller sued Homeland Property Owners Association and several homeowners after learning some owners allegedly altered homes without ARB approval; counts III and IV targeted Llano regarding his garage addition.
- Homeland’s Declaration requires ARB approval for plan changes, limits building height to 32 feet, and prohibits flat roofs except for patios/pools; Association has enforcement authority.
- Llano originally obtained ARB approval for a garage addition, later revised plans during construction without prior ARB approval, and completed the garage in 2012.
- In 2014 the Association discovered the unapproved revisions, sent a violation notice, then received an engineer’s report and a county building official’s email indicating the garage height and roof were compliant; the Association’s counsel advised approval.
- The Board approved the as-built garage and ceased enforcement; Miller produced a contrary expert affidavit opining a different roof shape and greater height.
- The trial court granted partial final summary judgment for Llano (counts III & IV), applying the business judgment rule; the Fourth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Llano/Association) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on association’s approval of Llano’s garage | Roof was effectively flat or mansard and exceeded height limit; factual disputes exist | Board reasonably relied on engineering opinion, county email, and counsel; no material factual dispute remains | No genuine material fact bars summary judgment; court affirmed |
| Whether the business judgment rule protects the Board’s decision | Board acted arbitrarily/bad faith by condoning noncompliance; rule shouldn’t shield wrongful non‑enforcement | Rule applies to association decisions if within authority and reasonable; protects against second‑guessing | Business judgment rule applies; Board acted within authority and reasonably |
| Whether the Association had authority to enforce/approve covenants | N/A (Miller’s claim assumes enforcement obligation) | Declaration and bylaws grant Association enforcement and ARB authority | Association clearly had contractual authority to enforce and approve |
| Whether plaintiff showed improper influence or misconduct in Board’s approval | Annuziata and Llano improperly influenced Board; approval was result of deals/self‑serving docs | No admissible evidence of improper influence; submissions were legitimate professional opinions | Plaintiff failed to present evidence of improper influence; claim speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Hollywood Towers Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Hampton, 40 So. 3d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (business judgment rule applies to association decisions; two‑part test)
- Garcia v. Crescent Plaza Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 813 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (appellate review requires record clearly show reasonableness to affirm summary judgment for association)
- Farrington v. Casa Solana Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 517 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (board’s reasonable business judgment entitled to protection)
- Cont’l Concrete, Inc. v. Lakes at La Paz III Ltd. P’ship, 758 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (nonmaterial factual disputes do not defeat summary judgment)
- LeMaster v. Glock, Inc., 610 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (conclusory or speculative testimony insufficient in summary judgment context)
- Landers v. Milton, 370 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1979) (party opposing summary judgment must provide sufficient counter‑evidence)