Grove Isle Ass'n v. Grove Isle Associates, LLLP
137 So. 3d 1081
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Grove Isle Association appeals an order dismissing Counts I–VI of its complaint with prejudice on statute of limitations and laches grounds.
- The Grove Isle complex includes three condo towers and a hotel, club, marina, and spa on Fair Isle; the Declaration governs access, maintenance, and finances.
- The private bridge and roadways are controlled by related entities, with maintenance obligations falling on the Condominium Association.
- The 1979 Declaration and a 1977 Final Judgment allegedly restricted club access and attendance, and sections of the Declaration are challenged as unfair or unenforceable.
- Plaintiff filed suit on July 10, 2009 seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief related to maintenance costs, club membership, and annual fees.
- Trial court dismissed Counts I–VI as time-barred or barred by laches; Count VII remains pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I (injunctive relief) is time-barred | Accrued as late as needed; ongoing public-use injury within 5 years. | Arose in 1979 or earlier; barred by 5-year limit. | Count I not barred on face of complaint; factual accrual date uncertain |
| Whether Counts II and IV (declaratory relief) are time-barred | Tolling and turnover facts create uncertainty about accrual date. | Accrued by turnover or well before July 2004; time-barred. | Dismissal reversed; insufficient face-of-complaint timing to bar claims |
| Whether Counts III and VI (unjust enrichment) are time-barred | Enrichment occurred within limitations period with ongoing payments. | Accrued in 1979; four-year limit expired. | Reversed; accrual dates not established on face of complaint |
| Whether Count V (breach of contract) is time-barred | Ongoing breach within 5-year period; continuing obligation not time-barred. | Breach occurred before 2004; barred. | Reversed; continuing nature could fall within the period |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend | Leave to amend should be freely given; not futile | Amendment would be futile | Abuse of discretion; reversal and remand for amendment opportunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodside Village Condo. Ass’n v. Jahren, 806 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2002) (deference to declaration amendments and restrictions; strong presumption of validity)
- Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (restrictions not invalid unless wholly arbitrary or against public policy)
- Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Miami v. Crestview Towers Condominium Ass’n, 595 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (notice of recorded amendments binds unit owners; restrictions upheld absent arbitrariness)
- State, Dept. of Envtl. Prot. v. Garcia, 99 So.3d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (elements of declaratory relief; need bona fide dispute and right to have doubt removed)
- Conley v. Morley Realty Corp., 575 So.2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (declatory relief accrual and timing considerations)
- Swafford v. Schweitzer, 906 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (unjust enrichment limitations; four-year statute)
- Schiffman v. Schiffman, 47 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (elements of breach of contract action)
- Lambrix v. Dugger, 547 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (liberal leave to amend; abuse if futile)