Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · 1981 · Property

PropertyCondominiumsRestrictive covenantsAssociation rulemakingcondominium declarationboard discretionuse restrictionsinjunction

Facts

Hidden Harbour Estates is a condominium development of mobile homes on lots owned by individual residents. After concerns arose about salinity in the association's deep wells, the Bassos sought board permission in November 1975 to drill a shallow well on their property, allegedly required under Article 13.1 of the declaration, but the board denied the request in March 1976. The board later asserted three reasons for denial: possible increased salinity, staining of sidewalks and common areas, and proliferation of wells by other owners. The Bassos drilled the well in January 1977 anyway, and the association sought injunctive relief.

Issue

When a condominium declaration gives the board discretion to approve or deny a particular use, may the board deny that use without showing that the denial is reasonably related to legitimate condominium objectives? More specifically, was Hidden Harbour entitled to an injunction against the Bassos' well on the evidence presented?

Rule

Restrictions contained in a declaration of condominium are strongly presumed valid and will not be invalidated absent a showing that they are wholly arbitrary in application, violate public policy, or abrogate a fundamental constitutional right. By contrast, when a restriction is created by the board or when the board exercises discretionary authority to allow or deny a use, the rule of reasonableness applies: the board must act in a manner reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness, and peace of mind of the unit owners, and must allow the use unless it is demonstrably antagonistic to those legitimate objectives.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a condominium complex in Tampa, the recorded declaration expressly forbids any rooftop solar panels on individual units. Lena Ortiz installs panels anyway and argues the ban is outdated because newer panels are visually unobtrusive and would lower utility costs for residents.

If the association seeks an injunction, which standard should a court apply to Lena's challenge to the restriction?

Explanation. When the restriction is contained in the declaration itself, it receives a very strong presumption of validity. The majority distinguished that category from board-made rules or discretionary denials. For declaration-based restrictions, the proper test is not ordinary reasonableness; the challenger must show the restriction is wholly arbitrary in application, violates public policy, or abrogates a fundamental constitutional right.