Tiffany Plaza Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Spencer

416 So. 2d 823
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 26, 1982
Docket81-1657
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 416 So. 2d 823 (Tiffany Plaza Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Spencer) 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
Tiffany Plaza Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Spencer, 416 So. 2d 823 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

416 So.2d 823 (1982)

TIFFANY PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida Nonprofit Corporation, Appellant,
v.
Mr. and Mrs. C.O. SPENCER, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Richard Etsell, Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Weinberg, Mr. and Mrs. Derek Hogg, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Mills, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Empkie, and Mrs. Hildegard V. Arronett, Appellees.

No. 81-1657.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 26, 1982.
Rehearing Denied July 16, 1982.

Robert L. Moore of Kanetsky, Moore, DeBoer & Horlick, P.A., Venice, for appellant.

C. Anthony Sexton of Hill, Hill & Dickenson, Tampa, for appellees.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant, Tiffany Plaza Condominium Association, Inc., defendant below, is an association organized pursuant to chapter 711, Florida Statutes (1974 Supp.), and the Declaration of Condominium of Tiffany Plaza Condominiums entered into in July 1975. Tiffany Plaza Condominium is a forty-two unit residential condominium located at Longboat Key, Florida. Appellees, plaintiffs below, are the individual owners of six of the residential units in the condominium. Their action in the trial court was to prevent the collection of an assessment imposed upon them by the association for construction of a rock revetment on the sand and beach between the condominium and the mean high-water line of the Gulf of Mexico. The beach between the condominium and the mean high-water line is a "common element" of the condominium as defined in the declaration of condominium and chapter 711, Florida Statutes (1974 Supp.), and its successor statute, chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1981).

At an annual meeting on February 7, 1981, a vote regarding construction of the rock revetment was taken by members of the association. Thirty-two voted for and eight voted against. Two members were absent. The board of directors of the association then voted to assess all members for their pro rata share of the cost of constructing the rock revetment. Appellees objected and filed their action seeking an exemption from payment by reason of article 5.2(b) of the declaration of condominium. The association defended on the basis that the rock *824 revetment was not an alteration or improvement of a common element as contemplated by article 5.2(b), but was part of the maintenance, repair and replacement of a common element which the association had responsibility for under several provisions of the declaration, bylaws and statutes.

The trial court's final order found for appellees, holding that article 5.2(b) of the declaration of condominium "prohibits any alteration or improvement of the common elements for any reason, including but not limited to the maintenance of the common elements, unless those unit owners who do not consent to the alteration or improvement are relieved from the initial cost thereof." We reverse.

Both parties urge the applicability of certain sections of chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1981). They argue and we agree that there is no essential difference between the relevant sections of chapter 718, Florida Statutes (1981), and chapter 711, Florida Statutes (1974 Supp.), in effect at the time of the adoption of the declaration of condominium. The relevant parts of the declaration, bylaws and statutes are as follows:

Declaration of Condominium

2.6 Common expenses include

(a) Expenses of administration; expenses of maintenance, operation, repair or replacement of the common elements, and of the portions of apartments to be maintained by the Association.

(b) Expenses declared common expenses by provisions of this Declaration or the Bylaws.

(c) Any valid charge against the condominium as a whole.

... .

3.6 Common Elements: The common elements include the land and all other parts of the condominium not within the individual apartments. All common elements shall be available for use by all apartment owners without discrimination. Such use shall be without charge except where specifically authorized by this Declaration.

4.5 Liability for Common Expenses or Limited Common Expenses: Each apartment owner shall be liable for a proportional share of the common expenses or limited common expenses, such share being the same as the undivided share in the common elements which is appurtenant to his apartment.

5. Maintenance, Alteration and Improvements: Responsibility for the maintenance of the condominium property and restrictions upon the alteration and improvement thereof, shall be as follows:...

5.2 Limited Common Elements and Common Elements:

(a) By the Association: The maintenance and operation of the limited common elements and the common elements shall be the responsibility and expense of the Association.

(b) Alteration and Improvement: After the completion of the improvements included in the limited common elements and the common elements which are contemplated by this Declaration, there shall be no alteration nor further improvement of the limited common elements and common elements, without prior approval in writing of the record owners of the apartments; provided, however, that any alteration or improvement of the limited common elements or the common elements bearing the approval in writing of the record owners of not less than 75% of the common elements, and which does not interfere with the rights of any owners without their consent, may be done if the owners who do not approve are relieved from the initial cost thereof. The share of any cost not so assessed shall be assessed to the other apartment owners in the shares which their shares in the common elements bear to each other. There shall be no change in the shares and rights of an apartment owner in the common elements which are altered or further improved, whether or not the apartment owner contributes to the cost thereof. Nothing in this section shall contravene the rights as established in Section 3.2 hereof.

*825 6. Assessments: The making and collection of assessments against apartment owners for common expenses shall be pursuant to the Bylaws and subject to the following provisions:

6.1 Share of common expense: Each apartment owner shall be liable for the proportionate share of the common expenses, and shall share in the common surplus, such shares being the same as the undivided share in the common elements appurtenant to the apartments owned by him.

9. Reconstruction or Repair after Casualty:

9.1 Determination to Reconstruct or Repair: If any part of the condominium property shall be damaged by casualty, whether or not it shall be reconstructed or repaired shall be determined in the following manner:

(a) Common element and limited common element: If the damaged improvement is a limited common element or common element the damaged property shall be reconstructed or repaired, unless it is determined in the manner elsewhere provided that the condominium shall be terminated.

9.5 Assessments: If the proceeds of insurance are not sufficient to defray the estimated costs of reconstruction and repair by the Association, or if at any time during reconstruction and repair, or upon completion of reconstruction and repair said proceeds are insufficient, assessments shall be made against the apartment owners in the case of damage to limited common elements and common elements, in sufficient amounts to provide funds for the payment of such costs.

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

Related

Hollywood Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Hampton
40 So. 3d 784 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
City of Tulsa v. Raintree Estates I, Inc.
2007 OK CIV APP 41 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2007)
Reuter v. Courtyards of the Grove Condominium Ass'n
785 So. 2d 687 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Cedar Cove Efficiency Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. CEDAR COVE PROP. INC.
558 So. 2d 475 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
DOCKSIDE ASSOC., INC. v. Detyens
352 S.E.2d 714 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1987)
Ralph v. Envoy Point Condo. Ass'n
455 So. 2d 454 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Cottrell v. Thornton
449 So. 2d 1291 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Wolinsky v. Kadison
449 N.E.2d 151 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
416 So. 2d 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-plaza-condominium-assn-inc-v-spencer-fladistctapp-1982.