Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · 1975 · Property

PropertyCondominiumsCondominium association rulemakingCommon elementsReasonableness of restrictionscondominiumassociationboard of directors

Facts

Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. was the condominium association for a 202-unit condominium, and its articles of incorporation and declaration gave it power to make and amend reasonable rules respecting use of the condominium property. The association's directors adopted a rule prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the clubhouse and adjacent common areas, and the condominium owners approved the rule by a 126-to-63 vote. The appellees, owners of one unit, challenged the rule and showed at trial that no untoward incidents had occurred during social events where alcohol had been consumed. The trial court enjoined enforcement, concluding that such rules must reasonably relate to protection of life, property, or general welfare and that lawful conduct on common property could be restricted only if it constituted a nuisance.

Issue

May a condominium association's board adopt a rule prohibiting the use of alcoholic beverages in certain common areas of the condominium? More specifically, is such a rule enforceable when it is reasonable, even if the prohibited conduct has not risen to the level of a nuisance?

Rule

The governing test is reasonableness. A condominium association may adopt rules regulating use of condominium property, including common elements, so long as the rules are reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, and regulation does not require that the conduct first amount to a nuisance.

🔒

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.

At Lakeview Terrace Condominiums in Tampa, the declaration authorizes the association to make reasonable rules governing condominium property. The board adopts a rule banning smoking on the shared rooftop lounge and in the adjoining hallway after several residents complain that they dislike being around smoke, even though no resident can show any prior incident that rose to the level of a nuisance.

If a unit owner challenges the rule, which is the strongest argument for upholding it?

Explanation. The majority opinion adopts reasonableness as the governing test for condominium rules regulating use of condominium property, especially common areas. It rejects both the idea that the rule must be tied only to protection of life, property, or general welfare and the idea that conduct must first amount to a nuisance. Because condominium living permits curtailment of some individual freedom for the health, happiness, peace of mind, and enjoyment of unit owners, a reasonable smoking ban in shared areas may be upheld. (Derived from Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Norman (n.d.).)