Picker v. Levinson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Picker v. Levinson

443 So. 2d 110, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19496

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 31, 1983

DocketNo. 82-2633

StatusPublished

This text of 443 So. 2d 110 (Picker v. Levinson) 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

Picker v. Levinson, 443 So. 2d 110, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19496 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a unit owner and member of a condominium association, brought a class action challenging the proposed purchase of the recreation lease from the developer. The basis of his complaint concerned alleged technical improprieties in the proxies secured from other owners; and the lack of a properly conducted meeting of the association to ratify the contract. Section 718.111(12), Florida Statutes (1981), however, requires only the “approval” of two-thirds of the unit owners to purchase a recreation lease. See Waterford Point Condominium Apartments, Inc. v. Fass, 402 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 465 (Fla.1982). It specifically does not necessitate either formal proxies or an association meeting to evidence that approval. Compare, e.g., § 718.112(2)(f), Fla.Stat. (1981). The face of the complaint shows, and it was not suggested otherwise, that the required percentage of owners had in fact “approved”, that is, objectively signified their assent to the purchase. Black’s Law Dictionary 94 (5th ed. 1979). Since that is all that is legally necessary, the case was therefore properly dismissed with prejudice. The deficiency in the complaint is one which cannot be cured by amendment. DeMaris v. Asti, 426 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Limited, 408 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, a unit owner and member of a condominium association, brought a class action challenging the proposed purchase of the recreation lease from the developer. The basis of his complaint concerned alleged technical improprieties in the proxies secured from other owners; and the lack of a properly conducted meeting of the association to ratify the contract. Section 718.111(12), Florida Statutes (1981), however, requires only the “approval” of two-thirds of the unit owners to purchase a recreation lease. See Waterford Point Condominium Apartments, Inc. v. Fass, 402 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So.2d 465 (Fla.1982). It specifically does not necessitate either formal proxies or an association meeting to evidence that approval. Compare, e.g., § 718.112(2)(f), Fla.Stat. (1981). The face of the complaint shows, and it was not suggested otherwise, that the required percentage of owners had in fact “approved”, that is, objectively signified their assent to the purchase. Black’s Law Dictionary 94 (5th ed. 1979). Since that is all that is legally necessary, the case was therefore properly dismissed with prejudice. The deficiency in the complaint is one which cannot be cured by amendment. DeMaris v. Asti, 426 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Affordable Homes, Inc. v. Devil’s Run, Limited, 408 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 So. 2d 110, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/picker-v-levinson-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack