TURNBERRY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., TURNBERRY ISLE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., JOINT COUNCIL OF AVENTURA, INC., BISCAYA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., BONAVISTA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., BRAVURA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., CORONADO CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., EL DORADO CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., BONAVIDA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., ENSENADA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., AND TURNBERRY ISLE CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
VILLA DORADA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., 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 upheld a summary judgment holding that condominium associations within a development cannot be assessed for the cost of maintaining street lights and landscaping until the county actually charges for such maintenance. The decision clarifies that no recovery may be assessed against condominiums that have not contracted for such services.
Until the county makes a charge for maintaining street lights and landscaping, no recovery may be assessed against a condominium within a development pursuant to the Declaration of Condominiums. Additionally, no recovery may be assessed against condominiums within the development that have not contracted for any such services.
[1] A condominium association cannot recover costs for street lighting and landscaping from individual condominium owners unless the county imposes a charge for such maintena…
[2] A condominium owner cannot be held liable for services for which they have not contracted.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Until such time as the county makes a charge to pay the cost of maintaining the street lights and landscaping, no recovery may be assessed against one of several condominiums within a condominium development pursuant to the Declaration of Condominiums.”
States the primary holding that assessments require an actual county charge
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMultiple condominium associations within a development sought recovery against Villa Dorada Condominium Association for costs associated with maintain…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Until such time as the county makes a charge to pay the cost of maintaining the street lights and landscaping, no recovery may be assessed against one of several condominiums within a condominium development pursuant to the Declaration of Condominiums.1 The trial court so held and we agree. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928); Harding Realty, Inc., v. Turnberry Towers Corporation, 436 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hermanowski v. Naranja Lakes Condominium No. Five, Inc., 421 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We also find that the trial court was correct in denying any recovery against condominiums within the development that have not contracted for any such services. Blake v. Munce, 426 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Mann v. Thompson, 100 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Therefore the summary judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Article XXV of the Declaration of Condominiums provides as follows:
“Dade County, Florida, may require that the persons benefitting from the use of dedicated roads in Aventura be required to pay the cost of maintaining the street lighting and landscaping thereof. The portion of the expense attributable to the Condominium is hereby declared a common expense, except to the extent that the cost is collected from individual unit owners by Dade County, Florida, by the exercise of its taxing powers. If the cost of maintaining said street lighting and landscaping requires an allocation between and among the Condominium and other properties in the Aventura Project which benefit from said improvements, then said allocation shall be made at the sole determination of the Developer, who shall make such allocation on a fair and equitable basis.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151 (Fla. 1928)
- Mann v. Thompson, 100 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Harding Realty, Inc. v. Turnberry Towers Corp., 436 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hermanowski v. Naranja Lakes Condo. NO. Five, Inc., 421 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Blake v. G.M. Munce & Blake & Cole, P.A., 426 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)