Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Community Ass'n

317 So. 2d 814
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 25, 1975
Docket74-1002
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 317 So. 2d 814 (Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Community Ass'n) 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
Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Community Ass'n, 317 So. 2d 814 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

317 So.2d 814 (1975)

Pauline T. RAINES et al., Appellants,
v.
PALM BEACH LEISUREVILLE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a Florida Corporation Not for Profit, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-1002.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 25, 1975.
Rehearing Denied September 4, 1975.

Wood, Cobb & Robinson, W. Palm Beach, and Robert T. Scott, Gunster, Yoakley, Criser, Stewart & Hersey, Palm Beach, for appellants.

Cecil H. Albury, Carlton, Brennan, McAliley, Albury & Hayskar, West Palm Beach, for appellees-Vastine, Shorter, Drasal, Smith, Sturges, Pagllard and Phillips.

*815 Andrew I. Friedrich and H.L. Cooper, Jr., O'Connell & Cooper, West Palm Beach, for appellee-Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association.

WALDEN, Judge.

This appeal concerns the legal interpretation to be given to certain condominium documents. The dispute lies in the area of maintenance — who shall be financially responsible for it and to what degree. As shall be shown, there are two conflicting provisions. Can they be reconciled or does one take precedence over the other?

For background, we describe the condominium development. It, somewhat unusually, consists of two kinds of habitations. On one hand, there are individual separate one family dwellings, each located on a single lot. We shall call the owners of these dwellings "improved lot owners." On the other hand, there are multi-storied condominium apartment buildings, each building containing 24 or more apartments, with each building located on a single lot. We shall call the owners of these apartments "condominium unit owners."

Arrayed in this litigation as plaintiffs-appellants are the condominium unit owners versus defendants-appellees, the improved lot owners and Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association.[1]

The condominium unit owners brought suit, complaining that they were being improperly assessed for certain maintenance costs.[2] The trial court held for the improved lot owners and the Association, basing its decision on an interpretation of critical portions of the condominium documents, and said:

"1. The Defendant, Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association, in performing its duties as required by the various Declarations of Restrictions pertaining both to Improved Lots and Condominium Apartment is assessing all costs of maintenance, upkeep and replacement of lawns, sprinkler systems and exterior building maintenance equally against each Improved Lot and Condominium Apartment owner.
"2. That the method of assessment described above is in accordance with the language and intent of the governing documents." (Emphasis added.)

Upon a study of the documents, we reverse.

The critical portions of the condominium unit declarations are Paragraphs 6 and 9.

Paragraph 6[3] clearly provides the condominium unit owners shall be liable for:

(1) A "pro-rata" share of the cost of sprinkler system operation.
*816 (2) Maintenance alteration and repair of the sprinkler system within the condominium apartment lot.[4]
(3) A 1/32 share of lawn maintenance and care within the lot.[5]
(4) A 1/32 share of exterior maintenance and repair to the condominium building upon the lot.

Paragraph 6 provides for apportionment equally to the condominium unit owners within a condominium building of the cost of caring for that building and the surrounding grounds comprising their lot. The clause "pro-rata share as hereinafter set forth", read in context within Sections A, B and C of that paragraph, refers only to the operation of the sprinkler system over the whole project area, and plaintiffs do not contest their obligation to share equally with improved lot owners in the expenses of that operation.

Paragraph 9, entitled "pro-rata share defined" is, however, not in accord with Paragraph 6 as to the obligations of condominium unit owners.[6] In essence, Paragraph *817 9, with a policy statement, says that the pro-rata share of a condominium unit owner shall be 32/1138th (or whatever numberator and denominator prevails at the time, depending respectively upon the size of each condominium building and upon the total amount of dwelling in the project area, both condominium and single family), and that each condominium unit owner shall be liable for this "pro-rata" share of Paragraph 6 expenses. This clause is in direct conflict with the directives of Paragraph 6. It is clear the condominium unit owners cannot be liable for both a 1/32nd share of Paragraph 6 expenses on their own lot and a 32/1138th share of Paragraph 6 expenses over the whole project area.

In construing this contract in favor of the plaintiffs condominium unit owners, we apply to the rule directing that a specific clause takes precedence over a general clause. Cypress Gardens Citrus Products, Inc. v. Bowen Bros., Inc., 223 So.2d 776 (2d DCA Fla. 1969). Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. White, 242 So.2d 771 (4th DCA Fla. 1970):

"Further, where there are general and special provisions in a contract relating to the same thing, the special provisions will govern in its construction over matters stated in general terms." 242 So.2d at 773.

It is only reasonable that condominium unit purchasers properly relied upon the specific language in Paragraph 6, Sections A, B and C, and concluded that they were liable for a 1/32nd share of the described expenses, even though Paragraph 9 was in *818 conflict. The reference in Paragraph 9 to Paragraph 6 expenses is a general one, and is applicable only to those portions of Paragraph 6 that are not exempted by specificity from that general directive. Section D of Paragraph 6, for example, deals with recreation lands.[7] The condominium unit owners do not contest their obligation to pay a Paragraph 9 pro-rata share of expenses dealing with recreational lands, and it is notable that Section D makes reference to the "pro-rata share as hereinafter defined," as did the portion of Section A, dealing with sprinkler system operation.

The Association and the improved lot owners have urged that the whole declaration must be considered and the general intent of the contract should prevail. This proposition is a basic one and unquestionably valid. Lalow v. Codomo, 101 So.2d 390 (Fla. 1958); see 3 Corbin on Contracts, Purposes and Methods § 549 (1960); 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts § 77 (1956). We feel that our interpretation is in accord with the general intent of the contract, and with the general policy statement in Paragraph 9.[8] The specific provisions of Paragraph 6, read in context with the general provisions of Paragraph 9, evidence a general intent that condominium unit owners pay for certain expenses inherent in condominium ownership,[9] and share on a pro-rata basis (as defined in Paragraph 9) those expenses which accrue to both unit and improved lot dwellers — such as recreation land maintenance.

We support this conclusion by reference to the analogous Paragraph 6 in the improved lot owner declaration, where it appears that improved lot owners are personally liable for certain maintenance singular to their position as single family residence owners. In Paragraph 6, Section A, of the improved lot owners'

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

Related

Ibis Lakes Homeowners Ass'n v. Ibis Isle Homeowners Ass'n
102 So. 3d 722 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Mulholland v. USAA Ins. Co.
771 So. 2d 567 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach
760 So. 2d 126 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Freundlich v. Lassiter
666 So. 2d 164 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Island Manor Apts. v. Div. of Land Sales
515 So. 2d 1327 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Mulhern v. Rogers
636 F. Supp. 323 (S.D. Florida, 1986)
Raines v. Palm Beach Leisureville Com. Ass'n
413 So. 2d 30 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Palm Beach Leisureville Community Association, Inc. v. Raines
398 So. 2d 471 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Sall v. Truppman
379 So. 2d 997 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
317 So. 2d 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raines-v-palm-beach-leisureville-community-assn-fladistctapp-1975.