NATALIO AND HURI DE SLATOPOLSKY, APPELLANTS,
v.
BALMORAL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLEE
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 court held that the parenthetical phrase in the condominium declaration does not create ambiguity but merely states the restriction is subject to law.
Defendants appealed a permanent injunction prohibiting children under fourteen from residing in their condominium unit, based on a provision in the De…
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 Implied Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendants appeal from a permanent injunction prohibiting their children under the age of fourteen from permanently residing with them in a condominium unit. We affirm.
The controversy in this case concerns the proper construction of the following provision of the Declaration of Condominium:
No children under 14 years of age may reside in the condominium (unless permitted by law) but they may visit for reasonable periods of time during each calendar year. The defendants argue that the clause is ambiguous in that the parenthetical phrase “unless permitted by law” means that children may reside in the condominium if, under the laws of Florida, children can reside in condominiums. Plaintiff contends that the phrase was inserted to indicate that the restriction would be ineffective if such provisions were found by the court to be unlawful.
Both parties have placed tremendous emphasis on the meaning of the parenthetical phrase. We find it to be nothing more than an attempt to state that the restriction was subject to the laws of the state. Implied in every contract is the fact that it is to be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the law. Department of Insurance, State of Florida v. Teachers Insurance Co., 404 So. 2d 735 (Fla.1981); Bedell v. Lassiter, 143 Fla. 43, 196 So. 699 (1940). As such, there is no ambiguity created by the phrase in issue.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Ins. v. Teachers Ins. Co., 404 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1981)
- Bedell v. Lassiter, 143 Fla. 43 (Fla. 1940)