Turnberry Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Villa Dorada Condominium Ass'n
This text of 498 So. 2d 1047 (Turnberry Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Villa Dorada Condominium 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.
Opinion
Until such time as the county makes a charge to pay the cost of maintaining the street lights and landscaping, no recovery may be assessed against one of several condominiums within a condominium development pursuant to the Declaration of Condominiums.1
[1048]*1048The trial court so held and we agree. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928); Harding Realty, Inc., v. Turnberry Towers Corporation, 436 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hermanowski v. Naranja Lakes Condominium No. Five, Inc., 421 So.2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We also find that the trial court was correct in denying any recovery against condominiums within the development that have not contracted for any such services. Blake v. Munce, 426 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Mann v. Thompson, 100 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Therefore the summary judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
498 So. 2d 1047, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2652, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turnberry-towers-condominium-assn-v-villa-dorada-condominium-assn-fladistctapp-1986.