Neuman v. Grandview at Emerald Hills, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District · 2003 · Property

PropertyCondominiumsCommon elementsAssociation rulesPeaceable assemblycondominium associationcommon elementsauditorium

Facts

Grandview was a condominium association whose common elements included an auditorium reservable for social gatherings and meetings. After several owners used the auditorium on Saturday mornings for religious services, other members complained and the issue became highly confrontational at a board meeting. The board, citing the controversial nature of the issue, the desire not to tie up a common element for the regular exclusive use of a minority, and the need to avoid conflict among competing religious groups, polled the owners; seventy percent favored prohibiting religious services in the auditorium. The board then adopted a rule banning religious services in the auditorium, and the appellants challenged that rule.

Issue

Does a condominium association rule prohibiting the holding of religious services in the condominium auditorium violate section 718.123(1), Florida Statutes, by unreasonably restricting a unit owner's right to peaceably assemble? More generally, was the board's restriction on use of the common element unreasonable under the statute?

Rule

Under section 718.123(1), condominium associations may adopt reasonable rules and regulations governing the use of common elements, and the governing test is reasonableness. A restriction does not violate the statute so long as it is a reasonable regulation of the use of the common elements and does not unreasonably restrict the owners' right to peaceably assemble; regulations of common elements that are reasonable and not violative of specific statutory limitations should be upheld.

🔒

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 a condominium in Naples, the board allows residents to reserve the shared lounge for book clubs, birthday dinners, and committee meetings. After recurring disputes among residents over weekly political strategy meetings that monopolize the lounge every Sunday morning, the board adopts a rule barring political campaign meetings in that room while leaving other gatherings permitted.

If several unit owners sue under a statute providing that associations may adopt reasonable rules for common elements but may not unreasonably restrict peaceable assembly, which is the strongest argument that the rule will be upheld?

Explanation. The majority opinion makes reasonableness the statutory test. It upheld a rule that prohibited one particular form of gathering because the board reasonably concluded that the recurring use would create conflict and tie up a common element, while leaving other uses intact. The opinion did not hold that majority vote alone validates a rule, nor that objections alone justify any restriction, and it assumed arguendo that the prohibited gathering could fall within peaceable assembly.