VILLAGE ON THE GREEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
NATHAN KESSLER AND MIRIAM KESSLER, HIS WIFE, 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 court reversed summary judgment for homeowners, holding that a lot is "improved" under the Declaration if a patio home with a valid certificate of occupancy was constructed on it, even if the structure spans multiple lots, making the lot subject to assessment fees.
A lot is "improved" under the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions if a patio home has been constructed on it and a valid certificate of occupancy has been issued, regardless of whether the structure spans multiple lots.
[1] A lot is "improved" under a declaration of covenants and restrictions if a residential structure with a valid certificate of occupancy was constructed on it, even if the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees purchased lots 84 and 85 in a residential development called Village on the Green Patio Homes. A patio home with an attached garage was cons…
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 Certificate Of Occupancy cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAFER, ROBERT T., Associate Judge.
In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether certain assessment fees are applicable to two lots (lots 84 and 85) purchased by appellees in a residential development. The pivotal question in making this determination is whether lot 84 is an “improved” lot within the language of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Village on the Green Patio Homes (“Declaration”). If so, it was admitted in the Request for Admissions that the appellant was entitled to collect its assessments.
The trial judge, in entering final summary judgment in favor of the appellees apparently concluded that lot 84 was unimproved and, therefore, exempt from assessment fees. We disagree. In our view, in so concluding, the trial judge rewrote the condominium provisions set forth in the Declaration. The Declaration provides that an “improved lot” refers to a lot upon which a patio home has been constructed and for which a valid certificate of occupancy has been issued by the applicable government authority. In this case, the patio home, including its attendant garage building, was constructed in part on both lots 84 and 85 and a certificate of occupancy was issued for all improvements. Thus, lot 84 is an “improved” lot and assessments from appellees are due and payable for that lot as well as lot 85.
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.