Maronda Homes, Inc. v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Ass'n
127 So. 3d 1258
| Fla. | 2013Background
- Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Association sued developer Maronda Homes (and third-party T.D. Thomson) for breach of the implied warranties of fitness and merchantability (habitability) based on defective subdivision infrastructure: storm-water drainage, retention ponds, private roads, underground pipes, and site grading that caused flooding, erosion, ponding, road collapse, and safety/public-health issues.
- Maronda and T.D. Thomson moved for summary judgment arguing implied warranties do not extend to off‑site or common‑area improvements that are not physically attached to individual homes; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Fifth District reversed, adopting an “essential services” test: implied warranties apply to common‑area improvements that provide services essential to the habitability of the home (e.g., roads, drainage, retention ponds, underground pipes); it also held the homeowners association has standing to sue on members’ behalf.
- The Florida Supreme Court granted review, affirmed the Fifth District, and disapproved the Fourth District’s Port Sewall decision to the extent inconsistent; it adopted the essential‑services test and remanded for further proceedings.
- During the case the Legislature enacted section 553.835 (2012), attempting to limit implied‑warranty actions to on‑lot improvements and to bar causes of action for damages to defined “offsite improvements,” with a retroactivity clause; the Court held that statute cannot be applied retroactively to abrogate Lakeview Reserve’s already‑accrued common‑law cause of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do implied warranties of fitness and merchantability apply to subdivision infrastructure/common‑area improvements that are not physically attached to a home? | Implied warranties cover improvements that provide "essential services" directly affecting habitability (drainage, roads, retention ponds, underground pipes). | Warranties should be limited to structures that physically support or are attached to the residence; offsite/common improvements are excluded. | Held: Warranties extend to improvements that provide essential services and immediately support habitability, even if not physically attached. |
| Can a homeowners association sue for breach of implied warranties on behalf of its members? | Association may sue on behalf of members for matters of common interest and for improvements the association must repair. | Defendants argued individual homeowners must sue separately. | Held: Lakeview Reserve has standing under §720.303(1) to bring claims for common‑interest improvements. |
| Does Fla. Stat. §553.835 (2012) retroactively bar Lakeview Reserve’s pending/common‑law claims? | Statute is substantive; retroactive application would abolish vested common‑law causes of action that accrued before the statute. | Defendants argued the statute expressly applies retroactively and is remedial/clarifying, thus validly abolishing or limiting claims. | Held: §553.835 is substantive and cannot be applied retroactively to extinguish Lakeview Reserve’s accrued common‑law cause of action; statute does not affect causes that accrued before its effective date. |
| Does §553.835 violate access to courts or separation of powers by abolishing common‑law remedies without reasonable alternatives? | Statute abolishes certain implied‑warranty causes of action and does not provide an adequate alternative; Legislature cannot retroactively extinguish accrued common‑law causes. | Defendants relied on Legislature’s authority and preserved alternative remedies in tort/contract/statute. | Held: Legislature may not retroactively abolish accrued common‑law causes; applying §553.835 retroactively would offend due process and access‑to‑courts principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gable v. Silver, 264 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1972) (adopting implied warranties of fitness and merchantability for new home sales)
- Conklin v. Hurley, 428 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1983) (limits implied warranties where improvement not part of or in support of a residence)
- Port Sewall Harbor & Tennis Club Owners Ass'n v. First Fed. S. & L. Ass'n, 463 So.2d 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (Fourth District decision limiting warranties for offsite improvements; partially disapproved)
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (summary‑judgment standard cited)
- American Optical Corp. v. Spiewak, 73 So.3d 120 (Fla. 2011) (discussing vested rights and limits on retroactive application of statutes)