232 So.3d 401
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- The City owned a waterfront parcel divided into three condominium units (R-1 residential, C-1 marina, C-2 commercial) created by a 1979 Lease and a 1981 Declaration of Condominium.
- The Lease contained development restrictions: a view-preservation provision (retain 62.82% waterfront view), a unanimity requirement for site-plan approval by City Commission, and referenced Site Plan 7 (four-story, 20,000 sq ft limit).
- The Declaration incorporated the Lease and other "Condominium Documents," allocated residential and commercial units, and provided remedies (Article XXII) allowing the Association or any unit owner to sue for violations of the Condominium Documents.
- Leisure Resorts (successor lessee) later entered a 2009 Development Agreement with the City approving a conceptual Site Plan No. 8 for a hotel/parking garage on C-2; Leisure Resorts subleased C-2 to Palm Harbor Hotel, LLC.
- Plaintiffs (Waterview Towers Ass’n and three residential unit owners) sued seeking declaratory relief that the Lease/Declaration/Site Plan 7 limit development of C-2 (e.g., single building, four stories / 75 ft, 100 ft frontage, surface parking), and that they have standing to enforce those restrictions.
- The trial court largely ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing to enforce the Lease against the commercial unit owner, limited plaintiffs’ enforcement rights under the Declaration to height/width restrictions, and held Site Plan No. 8 and the Development Agreement were not challengeable due to limitations; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Association and residential unit owners have standing to enforce restrictive covenants in the Condominium Documents (including the Lease) against the commercial unit owner? | Declaration Article XXII and statutory law give the Association and any unit owner the right to sue a noncomplying unit owner; plaintiffs are co-lessees under partial assignments of the Lease. | Only the City (lessor) may enforce, modify or waive Lease provisions for the commercial portion; residential owners are not co-lessees of the commercial portion and thus lack independent enforcement standing. | Court held Association and residential unit owners have standing under the Declaration, Condominium Act, and as co-lessees/grantees from a common grantor to enforce restrictive covenants against C-2. |
| Are the Lease and Declaration restrictive covenants (height, frontage, view, unanimity, 20,000 sq ft) enforceable and do they limit development of C-2? | The Lease/Declaration restrictions were part of a general building scheme and confer reciprocal benefits; thus unit owners may enforce them inter sese. | Defendants argued subsequent approvals and agreements (Site Plan 8/Development Agreement) superseded or waived restrictions; some limitations were not enforceable by plaintiffs. | Court held the height, frontage, view, unanimity, and Site Plan 7 square-footage restrictions in the Lease/Declaration are enforceable by plaintiffs; trial court erred in rejecting enforcement. |
| Does the Declaration/Lease allow only a single commercial building on C-2 and prohibit a parking garage (i.e., is multi-level parking barred)? | Plaintiffs argued "one commercial building" language precludes a separate parking structure, so a hotel plus garage is not allowed. | Defendants said Declaration/Lease permit "parking facilities," which can include multi-level garages; references to "surface parking" are ambiguous and do not eliminate other parking forms. | Court found ambiguity: documents do not clearly preclude parking structures; "parking facilities" can include garages, so lease/declaration cannot be read to bar a parking garage. |
| Is Site Plan No. 8 / the 2009 Development Agreement the unchallengeable "currently approved development," and are challenges time-barred? | Defendants asserted Site Plan No. 8/Development Agreement gave conceptual approval and statute of limitations bars challenges. | Plaintiffs argued Site Plan No. 8 was only a conceptual/proprietary approval and required governmental/regulatory approvals to become final, so challenges remain viable. | Court held Site Plan No. 8 was a conceptual plan approved in City’s proprietary capacity and not necessarily the final governmental approval; the trial court erred in treating it as an unchallengeable currently-approved development. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of West Palm Beach v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 714 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (ownership scope of marina parcel and related title issues)
- Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Payne, 779 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (restrictive covenants are equitable rights arising from contract among property owners)
- Hagan v. Sabal Palms, 186 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (enforcement of restrictive covenants under a general building scheme)
- Rea v. Brandt, 467 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (restrictive covenants enforceable where mutual/reciprocal benefit exists among grantees)
- Fiore v. Hilliker, 993 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (negative easement/equitable servitude can prevent obstruction of a neighbor’s view)
- Palm Point Prop. Owners’ Ass’n of Charlotte Cty., Inc. v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1993) (associations’ and individual owners’ standing to enforce deed restrictions)
- Wilson v. Rex Quality Corp., 839 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (restrictive covenants construed strictly against enforcement and in favor of free use)
- Osius v. Barton, 147 So. 862 (Fla. 1933) (enforcer must show covenant intended to benefit enforcing parcel)