242 So. 3d 425
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff (Waverly at Las Olas Condominium Association) sued Owner (Waverly 1 and 2, LLC), a commercial unit owner, alleging unauthorized removal of two palm trees and violations of the Declaration.
- The condominium is mixed-use (residential and commercial units); the dispute concerns landscaping appurtenant to the commercial units.
- The Declaration contains: (1) section 2.42 defining “Unit” to include residential and commercial units; (2) section 9.1 requiring written Board consent for changes that could affect landscaping or drainage and obligating the Board to answer written requests by residential unit owners; (3) section 9.3 stating section 9’s restrictions “shall not apply to Developer owned Units or Commercial Units;” and (4) section 17.4 expressly permitting Commercial Unit Owners broad rights to alter exterior features without Association consent.
- At trial the court found the landscaping to be a Common Element and concluded sections 2.42 and 9.1 required commercial owners to obtain written Board consent before altering landscaping.
- The Fourth District reviewed the Declaration de novo and held that section 9.3 and 17.4 exempt commercial unit owners from section 9.1’s consent requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commercial unit owners must obtain written Board consent before altering landscaping appurtenant to their units | The Declaration’s broad language in §9.1 (requiring Board consent for changes affecting landscaping/drainage) applies to all Units, and §2.42’s unit definition supports applying §9.1 to commercial units | §9.3 expressly exempts Commercial Units from §9.1; §17.4 and §9.3 give commercial owners unilateral rights to alter their units and appurtenant limited/common elements without Association consent | Reversed: §9.3 and §17.4 exempt commercial unit owners from §9.1; commercial owners need not obtain Board written consent to alter appurtenant landscaping |
| Whether the trial court correctly interpreted the Declaration as requiring Board responses to written requests from commercial owners | Association relied on §9.1’s text implying Board oversight of landscaping/drainage changes generally | The written-response obligation in §9.1 specifically references Residential Unit Owners; construing that obligation to include commercial owners conflicts with §9.3 and §17.4 | Reversed: the written-response/consent language in §9.1 applies to residential owners; cannot be reasonably read to override §9.3’s express carve-out for commercial units |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Vision I Homeowner’s Ass’n, 981 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (interpretation of association documents is de novo and association bylaws are contract among members)
- Emerald Pointe Property Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Commercial Const. Indus., Inc., 978 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (contractual intent must be determined from the four corners of the document)
- Royal Oak Landing Homeowners Ass’n v. Pelletier, 620 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (contract provisions must be read together when interpreting an agreement)