Lakeview Reserve Homeowners v. Maronda Homes, Inc.
48 So. 3d 902
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2010Background
- HOA sue s for breach of implied warranties of fitness and merchantability (habitability) based on defects in subdivision’s common areas: roads, drainage systems, retention ponds, and underground pipes.
- Developer built the subdivision, managed it during development, then transferred control to individual lot owners and the Association.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, relying on Conklin and Port Sewall to hold no implied warranties for such common-area improvements.
- Appellate court reviews de novo and distinguishes Conklin and Port Sewall, determining a common law warranty of habitability applies to essential services in common areas.
- Court reverses and remands, certified conflict with the Fourth District; rejects the argument that warranties extend only to improvements immediately supporting residences; endorses extension to essential services like roads and drainage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do common law implied warranties extend to subdivision common areas? | Association argues warranties apply to essential services. | Developer argues warranties do not extend to common-area improvements. | Yes, warranties apply to essential services in common areas. |
| Are roads, drainage, and underground pipes “immediately support[ive]” of residences under Conklin? | Conklin should be read to include essential services affecting habitability. | Conklin confines to improvements immediately supporting the residence. | Extended to essential services; not limited to physical attachments. |
| Can a HOA pursue implied-warranty claims for defects in common elements on behalf of homeowners? | HOA represents homeowners; separate suits unnecessary and inefficient. | Claims should be by individual homeowners. | HOA may pursue; claims on behalf of homeowners are appropriate. |
| Should the decision extend beyond Port Sewall or align with Conklin? | Conflict with Port Sewall; Conklin not controlling here. | Port Sewall supports no extension; Conklin controls. | Conflict certified; Florida public policy supports extension in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conklin v. Hurley, 428 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1983) (implied warranties do not extend to first purchasers of unimproved land?”)
- Port Sewall Harbor & Tennis Club Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. First Federal Savings and Loan Ass'n of Martin County, 463 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (applied Conklin to roads/drainage; held no implied warranty for such common-area improvements)
- Gable v. Silver, 258 So.2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (extended implied warranties to purchase of new homes from builders (condominium context precedent))