WINSTON TOWERS 200 ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH SAVERIO, 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 condominium association appealed a trial court's judgment invalidating a bylaw amendment that prohibited pet ownership for animals not registered before a specified date. The court affirmed, finding the bylaw imposed an impermissible retroactive regulation on an existing unit owner and his lawfully-owned pet.
The bylaw amendment was void and unenforceable as an impermissible retroactive regulation. The association could not enforce the amended bylaw against Saverio's offspring pet, and judgment for the defendant was proper.
[1] A condominium association by-law amendment prohibiting the keeping of pets, including replacements for existing pets not registered by a specific date, is invalid and une…
[2] A condominium association cannot retroactively enforce a by-law amendment to prohibit a pet that was lawfully kept prior to the amendment's adoption.
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 bylaw in question was invalid and unenforceable in that it attempted to impose a retroactive regulation”
The trial court's reasoning for invalidating the amended bylaw, which the appellate court adopted as the basis for affirmance
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Saverio purchased a condominium unit in December 1971 and owned a female dog that was properly registered with the association. In February 197…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff condominium association appeals a final judgment for defendant unit owner in an action seeking to enjoin the keeping of a pet.
Defendant, Joseph Saverio, purchased a unit in the Winston Towers Condominium in December, 1971. He owned a female dog which was properly registered with the plaintiff, Winston Towers 200 Association, Inc. In February, 1974, the members of the association voted to amend the bylaws with respect to the ownership and replacement of pets. The amended bylaw provided that all pets, including any pet acquired as a replacement of a prior pet not registered as of February 28, 1973 would not be permitted on the premises. Any unit owner violating this provision would be assessed a fine of $10 per day. In May, 1975 Mr. Saverio’s dog gave birth to two pups, one of which he decided to keep. The association informed him that since the pup could not be registered, he was not permitted under the amended bylaws to keep it and unless he removed the pup from the premises he would be fined $10 per day. Mr. Saverio refused to comply and the association brought the instant action seeking to enjoin him from keeping the pup. A hearing was held at which only the attorneys for the parties argued. After argument of counsel, the judge ruled that the bylaw in question was invalid and unenforceable in that it attempted to impose a retroactive regulation. He thereupon denied the relief sought by the association and entered judgment for Mr. Saverio. We affirm.
The record .supports the trial judge’s determination that the subject amendment to the bylaws was void and unenforceable inasmuch as it was an attempt to impose a retroactive regulation. We, therefore, conclude that the judge correctly entered judgment for Mr. Saverio.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Constellation Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Harrington, 467 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…nforced against the Defendants. The regulation is invalid and unenforceable against these Defendants, in that it attempted to impose a retroactive regulation. The trial judge was correct in her ruling. See Winston Towers 200 Association v. Saverio, 360 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Wilshire. Be that as it may, Rule 26 — not the amended rule — in effect when the Har-ringtons purchased their unit, is the rule which binds them. The original rule is clear and unambiguous and prohibits children under twelve from…
-
Wilshire Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lize Kohlbrand, 368 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…t 181-182. In the instant case appellee admits knowledge of the restriction at the time she purchased her condominium unit. Her sole argument is the invalidity of the restriction. This case is unlike Winston Towers 200 Association, Inc. v. Saverio, 360 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) where a condominium association amended its by-laws to give retroactive effect to a similar restriction. Here, each of the owners purchased his unit knowing of, and accepting, the restriction imposed and in consideration of each o…
-
Flagler Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Miami v. Crestview Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 595 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…1985); see Hidden Har-bour Estates; Constellation Condominium Ass’n v. Harrington, 467 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ritchey v. Villa Nue-va Condominium Ass’n, 81 Cal.App.3d 688, 146 CaLRptr. 695 (1978). Compare Winston Towers 200 Ass’n v. Saverio, 360 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (condominium [*201] association by-law invalid when it attempts to impose retroactive regulation). For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in the Association’s favor. Appellant’s rema…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence