CUDJOE GARDENS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY H. PAYNE, JR. AND ELIZABETH BURGER-PAYNE, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's dismissal of an action by a property owners association seeking to enforce deed restrictions, holding that deed restrictions arise from contractual equitable rights among property owners and are not interests in real estate subject to Florida's Statute of Deeds two-witness requirement.
Deed restrictions are equitable rights arising out of contractual relationships between property owners and do not constitute interests in real estate to which section 689.01 applies. Therefore, amendments to deed restrictions by majority vote need not comply with the Statute of Deeds two-witness requirement.
[1] Deed restrictions are equitable rights arising from a contractual relationship among property owners and do not constitute interests in real estate to which the Statute o…
[2] The two-witness requirement of the Statute of Deeds does not apply to the amendment of deed restrictions that are equitable rights arising from contract.
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“the deed restrictions of this type are simply equitable rights arising out of the contractual relationship between and among the property owners and emphatically do not constitute interests in real estate to which section 689.01 solely applies”
States the core holding that deed restrictions are contractual equitable rights, not real property interests subject to the Statute of Deeds
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCudjoe Gardens Property Owners Association sought to enjoin construction by Roy H. Payne, Jr. and Elizabeth Burger-Payne that violated the community'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 Equitable Right cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
In Cudjoe Gardens Property Owners Ass’n v. Payne, 770 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), this court reversed the dismissal, for alleged lack of standing, of an action by Cudjoe Gardens Property Owners Association, Inc. to enjoin construction in violation of the community’s Declaration of Deed Restrictions. After remand, the trial judge again entered judgment against the association, this time on the ground1 that the deed restrictions, as previously amended by a majority vote of the property owners as provided in the original, recorded Declaration, see Bay Island Towers, Inc. v. Bay Island-Siesta Ass’n, 316 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), were void because the written ballots of the property owners did not comply with the two-witness requirement of Florida’s version of the Statute of Deeds, section 689.01, Florida Statutes (2000).
The association again appeals and we again reverse. It is clear that the deed restrictions of this type2 are simply equi table rights arising out of the contractual relationship between and among the property owners and emphatically do not constitute interests in real estate to which section 689.01 solely applies. See Homer v. Dadeland Shopping Center, Inc., 229 So. 2d 834 (Fla.1969); Bay Island Towers, Inc. v. Bay Island-Siesta Ass’n, 316 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Op. Att’y Gen. 071-206 (1971)(“A restriction resulting from a restrictive covenant is a creature of equity arising out of contract and does not give rise to an interest in real estate.”).
' Accordingly, the judgment under review is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed.
. While the order is silent as to its legal basis, no other even plausible reason appears in the record or has been asserted on appeal.
. The appellees seem to claim that the rights of the association to enter upon a homeowner's property for enforcement purposes, which, in this case, were also explicitly contained in the original restrictions, are properly viewed separately from the restrictions themselves and qualify as "easements” to which section 689.01 may apply. While the issue is not involved in this case in which the appellant seeks only a court order to enforce the restrictions, we observe that the law appears to be contrary of this contention. See City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So. 2d 439, 445 (Fla.1978), appeal dismissed, 441 U.S. 939, 99 S.Ct. 2153, 60 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1979); Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 106 So. 901 (1925).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Waterview Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF W. Palm Beach, 232 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…the Lease at Article XXX, section 5. These building restrictions are restrictive covenants, “equitable rights arising out of the contractual relationship between and among the,- property owners.” Cudjoe Gardens Property Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Payne, 779 So. 2d 598, 598-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). While covenants restraining the free use of realty are not favored, “in order to provide the fullest liberty of contract and the widest latitude possible in disposition of one’s property, restrictive covenants are enforc…
-
Luis Antonio Beckett - Morales and Sharon Talamantes - Santiago v. Craiger Scheuer (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…o. 3d 401, 409 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("These building restrictions are restrictive covenants, 'equitable rights arising out of the contractual relationship between and among the property owners.' " (quoting Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Payne, 779 So. 2d 598, 598–99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001))). Yet Scheuer has identified no provision of the declaration or architectural guidelines that Morales and Santiago have breached. They submitted their application. They received approval from the architectural review co…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879 (Fla. 1925)
- Porter W. Homer v. Dadeland Shopping Ctr., Inc., 229 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1969)
- City OF Miami v. ST. JOE Paper Co., 364 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1978)
- Rudder v. Wise Cnty. Hous. & Redev. Auth., 441 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1979)
- Thies v. Joint Bar Ass'n Grievance Comm. for the Second & Eleventh Jud. Districts, 441 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1979)
- BAY Island Towers, Inc. v. BAY Island-Siesta Ass'n, 316 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Payne, 770 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)