A & P INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE CIRCLE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, 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.
A property developer purchased land in a planned unit development and later disputed whether it was bound by an unrecorded cost-sharing agreement its predecessor had executed with other condo associations for recreation facility expenses. The court affirmed that the agreement was binding on the successor owner because the owner had actual notice of the agreement at the time of purchase, regardless of whether it satisfied the technical requirements of a covenant running with the land.
The unrecorded agreement was binding on the successor owner because actual notice of the agreement was sufficient to bind the owner, regardless of whether the agreement satisfied the technical requirements for a covenant running with the land such as including the word 'assigns,' being contained in a deed, or being recorded.
[1] A subsequent owner of property is bound by an unrecorded agreement concerning shared expenses if the owner had actual notice of the agreement at the time of purchase.
[2] Actual notice of an agreement regarding land use restrictions is sufficient to bind a subsequent owner, even if the agreement does not technically qualify as a covenant r…
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“whether a restrictive agreement runs with the land is material only on the question of notice, because if it runs with the land it is binding regardless of notice, and if it does not run with the land, the owner is bound only if he took with notice”
Establishes the controlling principle that actual notice is sufficient to bind a successor owner regardless of whether the agreement technically runs with the land
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA & P Investment Group purchased undeveloped property in The Circle, a planned unit development containing multiple condo associations. Prior to A & P…
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 Covenant Running With The Land cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant purchased an undeveloped parcel of property located in a planned unit development called The Circle. There are other condo developments in The Circle and all of the unit owners are members of one homeowners’ association. After appellant constructed condo units on its property, this dispute arose as to whether an unrecorded agreement as to shared expenses of recreation facilities, executed by appellant’s predecessor in title, is binding on appellant. The trial court found that the agreement was binding because appellant had notice. We affirm.
Prior to appellant purchasing the undeveloped property, appellant’s predecessor in title had entered into the written agreement with the other condo associations in the PUD, providing that all owners of units, including those to be constructed on the undeveloped property, would share in the expenses of rebuilding recreational facilities which had been destroyed in a fire. This agreement was not recorded, but the trial court found that the appellant had notice of the agreement when it purchased the property, which appellant does not now contest.
Appellant makes a technical argument that the agreement is not a covenant running with the land because it does not contain the word “assigns,” because it was not contained in a deed, and because it was not recorded. The “black letter law” principles relied on by appellant regarding covenants are not on point because they do not apply where the subsequent owner has actual notice. Silver Blue Lake Apartments, Inc. v. Silver Blue Lake Home Owners Ass’n, 245 So. 2d 609 (Fla.1971)(whether a restrictive agreement runs with the land is material only on the question of notice, because if it runs with the land it is binding regardless of notice, and if it does not run with the land, the owner is bound only if he took with notice). Vetzel v. Brown, 86 So. 2d 138 (Fla.1956)(courts of equity will enforce land use restrictions against grantees taking title with notice without regard to the technicalities of the law relating to covenants running with the land).
Appellant’s argument that the assessments can be no more than those contained in an estoppel letter fails for the same reason, i.e., because appellant was on notice of the agreement providing for additional assessments at the time the property was purchased.
Affirmed.
SHAHOOD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berger v. Riverwind Parking, LLP, 842 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…d restrictions where none previously existed after he has sold the property claimed to be subject to the restrictions,2 recording the restrictions is not essential to their validity. See A & P Inv. Group, Inc., v. Circle Property Owners Ass’n, Inc., 741 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (relying on “black letter law” principles that the agreement is not a covenant running with the land because it does not contain the word “assigns,” because it was not contained in a deed, and because it was not recorded, is not…
-
Ahf-Bay Fund, LLC v. City OF Largo, 227 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…nt where they had constructive notice of recorded restrictive covenants and implied actual notice because of a statement in their deed that the title was subject to easements and restrictions of record); A & P Inv. Grp. v. Circle Prop. Owners Ass’n, 741 So. 2d 1139, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming trial court’s finding that an unrecorded, agreement as to shared expenses of recreation facilities executed by the appellant’s predecessor in title was binding on the appellant because the appellant had notice of…
Authorities Cited
- Vetzel v. Howell L. Brown, 86 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 1956)
- Silver Blue Lake Apts., Inc. v. Silver Blue Lake Home Owners Ass'n, Inc., 245 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1971)