ESPLANADE PATIO HOMES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CECIL D. ROLLE, ET AL., 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.
A homeowners' association may enforce a valid satellite dish restriction against homeowners despite a developer's sales agent's prior statement that the restriction would not be enforced, because the association itself made no representation and homeowners could not reasonably rely on a non-association member's statement.
An estoppel defense against a homeowners' association's enforcement of a valid restriction fails when the association itself made no representation and the homeowners' reliance was on statements by a developer's sales agent rather than the association.
[1] A homeowners' association is not estopped from enforcing a valid restriction when the homeowners relied on representations made by a developer's sales agent rather than b…
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 intelligenceThe Rolles purchased a home in Esplanade Patio Homes and erected a satellite dish despite a community restriction against such dishes. A developer's s…
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 Reasonable Reliance cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
On this appeal by the homeowner’s association, we reverse a judgment holding that it was estopped from enforcing a valid restriction against satellite dishes in the community. We reach this conclusion because (a) the association itself made no representation to the Rolles that the restriction could not be enforced; the only such statement was made by the sales agent of the developer which, whether or not the developer’s representative occupied positions on the association’s board of directors, could not bind the association itself, see Gladding Corp. v. Register, 293 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. discharged, 322 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1975), and (b) the appellees could not therefore have reasonably relied upon those statements in erecting the dish after their purchase of the home. Since two of the elements indispensable to the creation of an estoppel, a statement by the party sought to be estopped and reasonable reliance upon that representation by the party claiming the estoppel, see Enegren v. Marathon Country Club Condominium West Ass’n, Inc. 525 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), therefore do not exist, the judgment below cannot stand. See Enegren 525 So. 2d at 488; Chattel Shipping & Inv., Inc. v. Brickell Place Condominium Ass’n, 481 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Ass’n, 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983). Accordingly, it is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a judgment enforcing the restriction in question against the appellees.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Curci Vill. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Maria, 14 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…nce thereon.” State v. Harris, 881 So. 2d 1079, 1084 (Fla.2004). See also WSG W. Palm [*1178] Beach Dev., LLC v. Blank, 990 So. 2d 708, 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). The court did not find an estoppel in Esplanade Patio Homes Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Rolle, 613 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), where only the developer’s agent, and not the homeowner’s association, gave permission to the homeowner to install a satellite dish contrary to the declaration of covenants. The association was not es-topped from enforcing the re…
-
Emerald Ests. Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gorodetzer, 819 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…they had no objection but never obtained formal permission of Association, owner was not justified in believing she could safely ignore the Declaration’s requirement of prior written consent); Esplanade Patio Homes Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Rolle, 613 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Furthermore we find there was no long-continued waiver or acquiescence by the Association in relation to the Gorodetzers’ violation of the restrictive covenant where the Association notified the Gorodetzers of their violation, an…
Authorities Cited
- Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Edbury R. Enegren v. Marathon Country Club Condo. W. Ass'n, Inc., 525 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Gladding Corp. & Outdoor Sporting Goods Co. v. Register, 293 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- The Citizens OF the State of Fla. v. Mayo, 322 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1975)
- Rosenberg v. Bakerman, 481 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Chattel Shipping & Inv., Inc. v. Brickell Place Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 481 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)