DAVID J. HAYES ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SPRING LAKE VILLAS #1 ASSOCIATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Condominium unit owners sought compensation from condominium associations for use of a recreation area, claiming an implied contract to pay rent. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that because the developer had conveyed away all present possessory rights in the recreation area to the condominium for a 99-year term, it had no interest remaining to lease or charge rent for, and therefore no valid contract for rental payments could exist.
No. The developer, having conveyed away all present possessory rights through the 99-year lease to the condominium, retained no present interest in the recreation area to lease or charge rent for. Therefore, there was no valid consideration (quid pro quo) to support a contract requiring payment for use of the recreation area.
[1] A developer who conveys the fee simple title to condominium units and submits common elements, such as a recreation area, to condominium ownership for a fixed term has no…
[2] Where a recreation area is declared condominium property and submitted to condominium ownership for a term of years, it becomes part of the common elements appurtenant to…
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“The developer then had no present possessory interest in the property which it could validly lease to the individual unit owners.”
Establishes that once the recreation area became condominium property, the developer lost all present possessory interest that could be the subject of a lease.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe developer of Spring Lake condominium units conveyed fee simple title to condominium ownership and also conveyed common elements (swimming pool and…
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 Condominium Ownership cases and more on FLexlaw
[*456] DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellants brought suit against appellees, which are several, condominium associations, seeking (1) judgment allowing appellants “to recover reasonable compensation for the use of the ‘Recreation Area’ by the Condominium as an entity”; (2) a declaration as to their rights “pursuant to the Florida Condominium Act”; (3) judgment against appellees for specific performance of an implied contract; (4) judgment for damages and costs.
It appears that the developer of the condominium units involved herein, Spring Lake of Broward, Inc., conveyed the fee simple title to certain property to condominium ownership. In addition, the developer also conveyed to condominium ownership for 99 years certain of the common elements, such as the swimming pool and club house, referred to as the recreation area. In closing the sale of the condominium units the developer required the unit owners to enter into leases and pay an annual rental for use of the recreation area. Several unit owners brought suit against the developer, as a result of which this court in Ackerman v. Spring Lake of Broward, Inc., Fla.App. 1972, 260 So. 2d 264, held said leases to be invalid. The rationale of said decision is set forth in the following statement from the opinion of the court:
“The issue of the validity of the leases between the developer and the unit owners presents a different problem. By the terms of the Declaration of Condominium, the recreation area was declared to be condominium property, and was submitted to condominium ownership for the 99-year period. Once this was done, the recreation area became part of the common-elements of the condominium during the term of the estate for years, and appurtenant to the condominium units. The developer then had no present possessory interest in the property which it could validly lease to the individual unit owners.”
Taking their cure from a gratuitous footnote in the Ackerman case, appellants brought this suit against the Condominium Associations. However, now that the matter is squarely before us for decision it is our opinion that the developer, having conveyed away all of his present possessory rights by virtue of the 99 year lease, had no present interest to grant to anyone. The quid pro quo is lacking to enable appellants to recover any sum as rent for the recreation area.
Because of the foregoing conclusion, we need not reach another serious question in this case, i. e., whether in all events such a cause of action would lie against these Condominium Associations.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, J., and SILVERTOOTH, LYNN N., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ackerman v. Spring Lake OF Broward, Inc., 260 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)