TRADEWINDS OF POMPANO ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS; RICHARD THOMPSON AND RUBY THOMPSON, HIS WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS; ROGER CAPETTINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS; DAVID DAVIS AND MIRIAM DAVIS, HIS WIFE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS, APPELLANTS,
v.
STEWART S. ROSENTHAL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LAWRENCE W. URBANEK REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST NO. 1; WILLIAM GUNDLACH, AS TRUSTEE; LAWRENCE URBANEK; WILLIAM A. JOHNSON, AS TRUSTEE OF THE JOHNSON-HILL TRUST, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court order finding Florida Statute Section 718.401(4), which requires condominium unit owners to deposit rent into court when disputing lease obligations, unconstitutional as applied to a pre-existing master lease. The court held that because the lease was established before the statute's effective date, applying the statute would impermissibly impair the lessors' contract rights.
Section 718.401(4) is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case because the master lease was established prior to October 1, 1974, the statute's effective date. Under Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, the statute unconstitutionally impairs the obligation of contracts existing before its effective date, and the fact that some unit owners became parties to the lease after that date does not alter the lease's pre-October 1, 1974 existence.
[1] A statute requiring the deposit of recreational lease rental payments into the court registry is unconstitutional as applied when it impairs pre-existing contract obligat…
[2] The recording of a declaration of condominium and a master lease establishes the rights and obligations of lessors prior to the sale of individual units.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Section 718.401(4) is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case.”
The court's affirmance and holding that the statute impermissibly impairs contract rights in this context.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTradewinds of Pompano Association and unit owners sued to enforce a condominium recreational lease against the original and present lessors, claiming …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Effective Date Of Legislation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a non-final order disbursing recreational lease rental deposits from the registry of the court. The trial court determined that Section 718.401(4), Florida Statutes (1979), which requires such deposits, is unconstitutional. We affirm by holding that Section 718.401(4) is unconstitutional as applied to the facts of this case.
The appellants, The Tradewinds of Pompano Association, Inc. and several unit owners, commenced suit against the original lessor and the present lessors of a condominium recreational lease contending that the lease was unenforceable for various rea sons. Pursuant to Section 718.401(4),1 the appellants deposited certain of the unit owners’ rents into the registry of the court. The lessors moved for an order directing the clerk to disburse the deposits to them, and further, directing the clerk not to accept any additional deposits. After a hearing, the court, finding Section 718.401(4) unconstitutional, granted the motion. .This appeal followed.
All of the parties agree that the Florida Supreme Court declared Section 718.401(4) unconstitutional as an impermissible impairment of the obligation of contract, at least with respect to contracts in existence on the effective date of the legislation. Pomponio v. Claridge of Pompano Condominium, 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1980). The appellants contend that some of the unit owners’ individual leases were executed after October 1, 1974, the alleged effective date of the predecessor of Section 718.401(4), and that the legislation, therefore, applies to their obligations. The appellees contend that the lease came into existence prior to October 1, 1974. According to the Pomponio decision, therefore, Section 718.401(4) would constitute an unconstitutional, impairment of the obligation of contract created by the lease.
A master lease, attached to the declaration of condominium, was recorded in the Official Records of Broward County on April 30, 1974. This set the stage for the sale of the condominium units. As each unit was sold, the buyer was required to execute the master lease and a short form lease. Only the short form lease was recorded thereafter in the official records.
We hold that the recording of the declaration of condominium and the master lease established the rights and obligations of the lessors. Presumably, some sales were made and recorded prior to October 1, 1974, because the notice of rent deposits was limited to that class of owners who had executed short form leases after October 1. Nevertheless, the fact that some of the unit owners became parties to the lease after October 1 does not alter the existence of the lease and the lessors’ obligations before that date. Consequently, because the lease existed prior to the effective date of Section 718.401(4), Pomponio dictates a finding that under these facts the application of the statute is unconstitutional as impairing the contract rights of the lessors.
Accordingly, we affirm the order disbursing the rental deposits from the registry of the court. In view of our narrow holding, it is unnecessary to discuss the other arguments raised by the parties.
MOORE and HERSEY, JJ., concur. LETTS, C. J., concurs specially with opinion.
. 718.401(4)(a) In any action by the lessor to enforce a lien for rent payable or in any action by the association or a unit owner with respect to the obligations of the lessee or the lessor under the lease, the unit owner or the association may raise any issue or interpose any de1 fenses, legal or equitable, that he or it may ' have with respect to the lessor’s obligations under the lease. If the unit owner or the assor ciation initiates any action or interposes any defense other than payment of rent under the lease, the unit owner or the association shall, upon service of process upon the lessor, pay into the registry of the court any allegedly accrued rent and the rent which accrues during the pendency of the proceeding, when due. If the unit owner or the association fails to pay the rent into the registry of the court, it shall constitute an absolute waiver of the unit owner’s or association’s defenses other than pay-' ment, and the lessor shall be entitled to default. The unit owner or the association shall notify the lessor of any deposits. When the unit owner or the association has deposited the required funds into the registry of the court, the lessor may apply to the court for disbursement for all or part of the funds shown to be necessary for the payment of taxes, mortgage payments, maintenance and operating expenses, and other necessary expenses incident to maintaining and equipping the leased facilities. The court, after an evidentiary hearing, may award all or part of the funds on deposit to the lessor for such purpose. The court shall require the lessor to post bond or other security, as a condition to the release of funds from the registry, when the value of the leased land and improvements, apart from the lease itself, is inadequate to fully secure the sum of existing encumbrances on the leased property and the amounts released from the court registry.
[*978] LETTS, Chief Justice,
concurring specially:
I concur in conclusion only and would comment that I am surprised that the record as presented contained no copy of the declaration of condominium.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sans Souci v. Div. OF Fla. Land Sales & Condos., 421 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…filing of the superior declaration of condominium and its subordinate documents, such as the master sublease, since such date controls for purposes of fixing the parties’ rights and obligations. Tradewinds of Pompano Association, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 407 So. 2d 976, 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); accord, Hovnanian Florida, Inc. v. Division of Florida Land Sales, 401 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982). Thus, the law on the date of filing of the foregoing documents engrafts the law…
-
Cohn v. The Grand Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 26 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…pairment of the obligation of contract. For the stated reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. See also Wellington Prop. Mgmt. v. Parc Corniche Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 755 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Tradewinds of Pompano Ass’n v. Rosenthal, 407 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Cohen, 378 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Affirmed. . The Association gave notice of the action to the Attorney General, who declined to participate in the litigation. See §…
-
ERO Props., Inc. v. Cone, 418 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Pomponio v. The Claridge OF Pompano Condo., Inc., 378 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1979)