LEROY H. GORDON AND MARTHA L. GORDON, APPELLANTS,
v.
PALM AIRE COUNTRY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION NO. 9, INC., ETC., 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.
Condominium unit owners appealed from an injunction requiring removal of their pet dog, arguing the association board illegally adopted a blanket pet rule without amending the declaration. The Fourth District affirmed the injunction, finding the board properly considered the owners' petition on the merits rather than applying an illegal blanket rule.
The court affirmed the injunction, finding that the Board heard the appellants and considered their petition on the merits, supported by meeting minutes and substantial testimony, rather than applying an illegal blanket rule modifying the declaration.
[1] A condominium board may not adopt rules that modify the provisions of a declaration without a proper amendment.
[2] A condominium association may enforce a rule against pets if the board considers a pet petition on its merits, rather than applying a blanket prohibition.
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“Clearly, a condominium Board may not adopt rules modifying the provisions of a declaration without proper amendment.”
Establishes the legal principle that boards cannot unilaterally modify declarations through rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gordons owned a condominium unit in Palm Aire Country Club Condominium Association No. 9, Inc. The condominium declaration provided that pets coul…
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 Condominium Association Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
The owners of a condominium unit appeal from a judgment granting an injunction to the condominium association, requiring that appellants remove their pet dog from the premises.
Appellants contend that the Board illegally passed, and here enforced, a rule against pets without first amending the declaration which provides that there shall be no pete without the consent of the Board. Appellants argue that they were refused consent not on the merits of their petition, but because the Board adopted a blanket rule against pets.
Clearly, a condominium Board may not adopt rules modifying the provisions of a declaration without proper amendment. Beachwood Villas Condominium v. Poor, 448 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). But here, after a careful examination of the record, we cannot agree that the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Board followed such a modified rule. Here, the transcript reflects substantial testimony and evidence, supported by the minutes of the meeting, that the Board heard the appellants and considered their petition on the merits.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is supported by the record and should be affirmed. Under these circumstances it is not necessary for us to determine whether the Board invalidly modified the terms of the declaration.
We also find that the trial judge did not improperly exercise his discretion to try the equitable issues, which were ready for trial, without further delay until the trial of the legal issues raised by the counterclaim. See Thaller v. Waterford Point Condominium Apartments, Inc., 421 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 431 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 1983), and King Mountain Condominium Association v. Gundlach, 425 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). See also Padgett v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 378 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Also we find N.J. Willis Corp. v. Raskin, 430 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), and Adams v. Citizens Bank of Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), to be distinguishable.
The appellants’ objection to the enforcement provisions of the court’s judgment is now moot since the dog is no longer on the premises.
AFFIRMED.
WALDEN, J., concurs.
LETTS, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lakhi L. Mohnani v. LA Cancha Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 590 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…t 1145. In a later case, this court followed the same reasoning and stated: “Clearly, a condo [*38] minium board may not adopt rules modifying the provisions of a declaration without proper amendment.” Gordon v. Palm Aire Country Club Condo. Ass’n., 497 So. 2d 1284, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). In the instant case, the Declaration of La Cancha states, in pertinent part, XIII. CONVEYANCES AND SALES A. Sale or Lease. No apartment owner may ... lease without approval of the Board ... Approval of the Board shall b…
-
Lexington Place Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Flint (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Padgett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Santa Rosa Cnty., 378 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Adams v. Citizens Bank OF Brevard, 248 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- King Mountain Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gundlach, 425 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Beachwood Villas Condo. v. Poor, 448 So. 2d 1143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- N.J. Willis Corp. v. Raskin, 430 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Wright v. State, 421 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)