Coral Isle East Condominium v. SnyderCoral Isle East Condominium v. Snyder
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Hendry, Nesbitt, Ferguson
Pursuant to
We reverse on the authority of Century Village, Inc. v. Wellington, E, F, K, L, H, J, M, & G, Condominium Association, 361 So.2d 128 (Fla. 1978) and Kaufman v. Shere, 347 So.2d 627 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 355 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1978). See also Golden Glades Club Recreation Corp. v. Association of Golden Glades Condominium Club, Inc., 385 So.2d 103 (Fla.3d DCA 1980).
In Century Village, supra, the supreme court held that where
The declaration of the appellant condominiums provides:
The provisions of Chapter 711,2 supra, including the definitions therein contained, are adopted herein by express reference as if set forth in haec verba, and said statute as amended from time to time, ... shall govern this Condominium and the rights, duties, and responsibilities of owners of condominium parcels therein.
Because we find this language indistinguishable from that in Kaufman, supra, we hold that
Appellee concedes that the declaration of condominium submits the ninety-nine year lease to the condominium form of ownership but argues that the declaration did not intend to submit the lessor‘s interest in the lease to third party modification. Appellee cites footnote three in Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, Inc., 378 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1979) in support of his theory that only rights of the lessee and not
The critical factor in Pomponio is not the distinction between lessor and lessee but, as specifically stated in footnote 33, the absence of automatic incorporation. Unlike Century Village, supra, Kaufman, supra, and the present case, the declaration of condominium in Pomponio, supra, did not incorporate subsequent statutory amendments.4 This crucial distinction is made even more explicit by the provisions in section VII of the declaration and section XVII (D) and (K) of the long-term lease in Century Village, supra, and paragraph 8 of the declaration in Kaufman, supra, which expressly require the lessor‘s written signature and consent with respect to any modification or changes in obligation under the recreation lease. In each case, however, the court determined that the lessor, without written consent, was bound by the incorporated statutory amendments.
Because we find that
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.