Blair v. Mobile Home Communities, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blair v. Mobile Home Communities, Inc.

345 So. 2d 1101, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15636

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 18, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1388

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 345 So. 2d 1101 (Blair v. Mobile Home Communities, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blair v. Mobile Home Communities, Inc., 345 So. 2d 1101, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15636 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

Appellant/plaintiff appeals an adverse final judgment rendered in an action seeking an injunction to restrain appellee/defend-ant from violation of Section 83.71, Florida Statutes (1975).¹ The statute states in part:

(1) No mobile home park shall make or enforce any rule which shall deny or abridge the right of any resident of such mobile home park or any owner of a mobile home located in such park to sell said mobile home within the park or which shall require the resident or owner to remove the mobile home from the park solely on the basis of the sale thereof.

Appellee is the owner and operator of a mobile home park in Sarasota County, Florida. The park consists of 470 individual lots and common areas which include a club house, swimming pool, therapy pool, shuffle board, and recreation room. Each resident of the park owns his own mobile home, but the lot upon which the home is located is leased from appellee pursuant to a written rental agreement. The agreement incorporated by reference certain park rules which in pertinent part provide that:

Selling tools such as signs will not be allowed to be displayed in windows, on the home or appurtenances, nor on the lawn.

Two residents of the park placed four inch by eight inch “for sale” signs in the windows of their mobile homes and were threatened by appellee with enforcement proceedings. The residents filed a complaint with John J. Blair, the state attorney at that time, who filed a complaint in the circuit court. At a hearing on the state’s application for a temporary injunction, ap-pellee introduced evidence as to the favorable purposes of the park rule under attack and as to the other forms of advertising available to the residents. The trial court found that the rule did not abridge the statutory right of mobile home owners to sell their mobile homes. We disagree and reverse.

Our point of departure with the trial judge’s ruling is interpretation of the [1103]*1103statute, particularly the language “deny or abridge the right ... to sell. . . ” It is uncontroverted that “[t]he word ‘abridge’ means diminish, curtail, deprive, cut off, reduce.” Jolicoeur v. Mihaly, 5 Cal.3d 565, 96 Cal.Rptr. 697, 700, 488 P.2d 1, 4 (1971), citing Webster’s New International Dictionary 6 (3d ed. 1961). See also Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks International Association, 141 So.2d 269 (Fla.1962). The phrase “deny or abridge” means circumscribe or burden. Gray v. Johnson, 234 F.Supp. 743 (D.C.Miss.1964). We do not agree that the right to sell is restricted to alienation or transfer of title any more than the right to vote is restricted to one who pays a poll tax as in Gray or the right to work is restricted to union members and those nonunion members who pay the equivalent of union fees as in Schermer-horn. Although a law which guarantees a right which by its terms shall not be denied or abridged may permit a reasonable curtailment of that right, it cannot be construed to permit restrictions which would render the right useless. See Schermer-horn, supra. It is our view that the absolute prohibition, regardless of size, character, or placement, of a “for sale” sign places an unlawful burden on the right to sell by diminishing the implementation of that right.

We agree with the trial judge that the intent of the legislature was not to prohibit the park owner “from keeping his park upgraded.” State v. Henely, 41 Fla. Supp. 190, 192 (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct.1975). The owner and the tenants of a mobile home park have a common interest in a guarantee that their surroundings will be pleasant and maintained according to a certain standard. This opinion is not to be construed, therefore, as prohibiting a rental agreement which incorporates a rule providing a reasonable restriction on the character, size, or placement of a “for sale” sign in the mobile home or on the lot.

Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.

Appellant/plaintiff appeals an adverse final judgment rendered in an action seeking an injunction to restrain appellee/defend-ant from violation of Section 83.71, Florida Statutes (1975).¹ The statute states in part:

(1) No mobile home park shall make or enforce any rule which shall deny or abridge the right of any resident of such mobile home park or any owner of a mobile home located in such park to sell said mobile home within the park or which shall require the resident or owner to remove the mobile home from the park solely on the basis of the sale thereof.

Appellee is the owner and operator of a mobile home park in Sarasota County, Florida. The park consists of 470 individual lots and common areas which include a club house, swimming pool, therapy pool, shuffle board, and recreation room. Each resident of the park owns his own mobile home, but the lot upon which the home is located is leased from appellee pursuant to a written rental agreement. The agreement incorporated by reference certain park rules which in pertinent part provide that:

Selling tools such as signs will not be allowed to be displayed in windows, on the home or appurtenances, nor on the lawn.

Two residents of the park placed four inch by eight inch “for sale” signs in the windows of their mobile homes and were threatened by appellee with enforcement proceedings. The residents filed a complaint with John J. Blair, the state attorney at that time, who filed a complaint in the circuit court. At a hearing on the state’s application for a temporary injunction, ap-pellee introduced evidence as to the favorable purposes of the park rule under attack and as to the other forms of advertising available to the residents. The trial court found that the rule did not abridge the statutory right of mobile home owners to sell their mobile homes. We disagree and reverse.

Our point of departure with the trial judge’s ruling is interpretation of the [1103]*1103statute, particularly the language “deny or abridge the right ... to sell. . . ” It is uncontroverted that “[t]he word ‘abridge’ means diminish, curtail, deprive, cut off, reduce.” Jolicoeur v. Mihaly, 5 Cal.3d 565, 96 Cal.Rptr. 697, 700, 488 P.2d 1, 4 (1971), citing Webster’s New International Dictionary 6 (3d ed. 1961). See also Schermerhorn v. Local 1625 of Retail Clerks International Association, 141 So.2d 269 (Fla.1962). The phrase “deny or abridge” means circumscribe or burden. Gray v. Johnson, 234 F.Supp. 743 (D.C.Miss.1964). We do not agree that the right to sell is restricted to alienation or transfer of title any more than the right to vote is restricted to one who pays a poll tax as in Gray or the right to work is restricted to union members and those nonunion members who pay the equivalent of union fees as in Schermer-horn. Although a law which guarantees a right which by its terms shall not be denied or abridged may permit a reasonable curtailment of that right, it cannot be construed to permit restrictions which would render the right useless. See Schermer-horn, supra. It is our view that the absolute prohibition, regardless of size, character, or placement, of a “for sale” sign places an unlawful burden on the right to sell by diminishing the implementation of that right.

We agree with the trial judge that the intent of the legislature was not to prohibit the park owner “from keeping his park upgraded.” State v. Henely, 41 Fla. Supp. 190, 192 (Fla. 6th Cir. Ct.1975). The owner and the tenants of a mobile home park have a common interest in a guarantee that their surroundings will be pleasant and maintained according to a certain standard. This opinion is not to be construed, therefore, as prohibiting a rental agreement which incorporates a rule providing a reasonable restriction on the character, size, or placement of a “for sale” sign in the mobile home or on the lot.

Accordingly, the cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 So. 2d 1101, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-mobile-home-communities-inc-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack