Homeowner's Ass'n of Overlook v. Seabrooke Homeowners' Ass'n
62 So. 3d 667
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Overlook is a subdivision within the Seabrooke development; all Seabrooke subdivisions’ homeowners are members of Seabrooke, and each subdivision has its own declarations affecting only that subdivision.
- In May 2006 seven Seabrooke members obtained a judgment that Seabrooke’s conveyance of its roads to the City of Largo was null and void, holding Seabrooke responsible for maintaining the roads and enforcing related covenants.
- In December 2006 Overlook filed suit seeking declaratory relief about its rights under the 2006 judgment and the Seabrooke master declaration, arguing the 2006 judgment left Overlook uncertain and that Overlook was not included as an indispensable party.
- The case was transferred to the judge who entered the 2006 judgment; that judge recused to allow a neutral trial judge to decide whether the prior ruling was in error, and a successor judge was assigned.
- The appellees moved to dismiss, and the trial court held Overlook lacked standing to seek declaratory relief because Overlook members would bear no road maintenance burden as an Overlook entity, duties attributed to Seabrooke.
- Overlook amended its complaint seeking declaratory relief on behalf of its members and, separately, relief from the 2006 judgment under Rule 1.540(b); the trial court again dismissed, and Overlook appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Overlook may sue on behalf of its members for declaratory relief | Overlook had a common interest of its members; 720.303 and 1.221 authorize bundling and standing to challenge rights under declarations and judgments. | Overlook members have no standing since obligations lie with Seabrooke, not Overlook, and Overlook cannot challenge the Seabrooke judgment. | Overlook has standing to pursue declaratory relief on behalf of its members; reversed in part for this issue. |
| Whether the 2006 judgment affects Overlook members' road-maintenance obligations | The 2006 judgment imposes or preserves burdens on Seabrooke members that Overlook asserts are inconsistent with the master declarations and Overlook’s status. | The roads in Promenade and Vistas are Seabrooke common areas to be maintained by Seabrooke members under the master declaration; Overlook’s burden remains unchanged. | Depends on the interpretation of declarations; the declaratory judgment is appropriate to resolve the rights of Overlook’s members under the relevant declarations and the 2006 judgment. |
| Whether Overlook’s 1.540(b) claim and assertion that the 2006 judgment is invalid for lack of indispensable party were properly dismissed | The 2006 judgment was void or voidable due to lack of proper party inclusion and potential fraud on the court; Overlook sought relief from judgment. | No fraud or indispensable-party issue; relief from judgment denied. | No error in dismissal of these claims; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fla. Pritikin Ctr., Inc. v. Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass'n, 753 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (bundling of class actions under association rule requires common interest)
- Graves v. Ciega Verde Condo. Ass'n, 703 So.2d 1109 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (common elements and ownership interest standards for association standing)
- Meadows Cmty. Ass'n v. Russell-Tutty, 928 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (declaratory relief available to resolve association rights)
- X Corp. v. Y Person, 622 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (standing and declaratory judgment principles in association disputes)