LANTANA CASCADE OF PALM BEACH, LTD., AND JAMES A. SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
LANCA HOMEOWNERS, INC., A/K/A LANCA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., AND THE L.C. GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, INC., AND PATRICK MCKERNAN, 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.
This appeal concerns whether a homeowners association (Lanca) can serve as a class representative for mobile home residents in a class action counterclaim. The court reversed the trial court's finding that Lanca qualified as a class representative but affirmed that the counterclaim itself met the requirements to proceed as a class action.
Lanca cannot serve as an appropriate class representative because it is not a member of the class and therefore does not satisfy the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a). Section 723.079(1), Florida Statutes, which purported to authorize Lanca to act as a class representative, is unconstitutional as it usurps the Florida Supreme Court's rulemaking authority. However, the counterclaim itself meets the prerequisites of Rule 1.220(b) and can proceed as a class action.
[1] A party cannot serve as an appropriate class representative if it is not a member of the class it seeks to represent, as this fails to meet the requirements of Florida Ru…
[2] A statute purporting to grant a non-member authority to act as a class representative may be unconstitutional if it usurps the Florida Supreme Court's rulemaking authorit…
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“Lanca is not a member of the class, and therefore, does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a).”
Establishes the fundamental rule that class representatives must be class members, and Lanca fails this requirement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLantana Cascade and James A. Smith filed an action for declaratory judgment against Lanca Homeowners, Inc., the L.C. Grievance Committee, and Patrick …
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.220 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a non-final order certifying an action as maintainable as a class action. We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i). See Maner Properties, Inc. v. Siksay, 489 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We reverse.
Lantana Cascade of Palm Beach, Ltd. and James A. Smith, appellants, filed an action for declaratory judgment against Lanca Homeowners, Inc. (Lanca), L.C. Grievance Committee (L.C. Grievance), and Patrick McKernan, appellees. Lanca and L.C. Grievance, as alleged representatives of the mobile home residents of Lantana Park, filed a counterclaim for injunctive relief and damages.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that, although Lanca is not a member of the subject class, it was an appropriate class representative based on the authority of section 723.079(1), Florida Statutes (1985). Moreover, the trial court held that the counterclaim, except for specified portions, met the prerequisites of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220, and thus, could be maintained as a class action.
Appellants raise the issues of whether Lanca can be an appropriate class representative and whether the counterclaim can be brought as a class action. By order of this court, both The Federation of Mobile Home Owners of Florida, Inc. and Florida Manufactured Housing Association, Inc. filed a brief as an amicus curiae addressing the first issue.
We find that the trial court erred when it found that Lanca was an appropri ate class representative for the mobile home residents. Lanca is not a member of the class, and therefore, does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a). Moreover, section 723.-079(1), Florida Statutes (1985) cannot be used as authority to find that Lanca is a proper class representative. The language used in section 723.079(1) which purports to give Lanca the authority to act as a class representative has been struck down as unconstitutional in that it usurps the Florida Supreme Court’s rulemaking authority. Avila South Condominium Association v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla.1977). Therefore, on the authority of Avila, we hold section 723.079(1), Florida Statutes (1985), except for the first two sentences, unconstitutional. Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the final judgment which finds Lanca as an appropriate class representative.
However, we affirm the trial court’s finding that the counterclaim, except for the specified portions, could be maintained as a class action. The causes of action alleged in the counterclaim meet the requisites of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(b).
Accordingly, we reverse in part and affirm in part.
GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lanca Homeowners, Inc. v. Lantana Cascade OF Palm Beach, Ltd., 541 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1988)…SHAW, Justice. We have on appeal Lantana Cascade of Palm Beach, Ltd. v. Lanca Homeowners, Inc., 516 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), which declares invalid section 723.079(1), Florida Statutes (1985). We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. We affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the district court. Lantana Cascade (Park Owner) own…
Authorities Cited
- Avila S. Condo. Ass'n v. Kappa Corp., 347 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1976)
- Maner Props., Inc. v. Siksay, 489 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)