Woodside Village Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Jahren

Supreme Court of Florida · 2002 · Property

PropertyCondominiumsLease restrictionsDeclaration amendmentscondominiumdeclaration of condominiumamendmentleasing restriction

Facts

Woodside Village's original recorded declaration permitted leasing, with some board-approval requirements, and the declaration also provided for amendment by a two-thirds vote of owners. In 1997, after concerns about increasing nonowner occupancy and its effects on quality of life and market value, the owners amended section 10.3 to limit leasing to no more than nine months in any twelve-month period and to prohibit leasing during the first twelve months of ownership. Respondents Jahren and McClernan owned units purchased before that amendment and continued leasing in violation of the new restriction after receiving notice. The association sought to enforce the amendment, while respondents argued the new lease restriction was invalid as applied to them and challenged a later "Abilities Amendment" that exempted certain units used to accommodate handicapped persons.

Issue

May a condominium association enforce a declaration amendment restricting leasing against unit owners who bought their units before the amendment was adopted, when the recorded declaration authorized later amendments by a supermajority vote? Also, did the later amendment exempting certain units for disability accommodation unlawfully create two classes of ownership?

Rule

Under Florida's Condominium Act and an amendable recorded declaration, condominium unit owners take title subject to properly adopted future amendments to the declaration. A restriction contained in the declaration, including one added by valid amendment, is strongly presumed valid and will not be invalidated absent a showing that it is wholly arbitrary in application, violates public policy, or abrogates a fundamental constitutional right; statutory exceptions in section 718.110(4) and (8) remain controlling where applicable.

🔒

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 Orlando, Elena Park bought a condominium unit in 2015. The recorded declaration stated that it could be amended by a two-thirds vote and that each owner would be bound by the declaration as amended from time to time. In 2023, the owners validly adopted an amendment prohibiting any owner from leasing a unit during the first 18 months of ownership. Elena argues the restriction cannot apply to her because she purchased years before the amendment and bought the unit as a rental investment.

If the association seeks to enforce the amendment against Elena for a post-amendment lease, which is the strongest argument for the association under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority held that unit owners who purchase subject to a recorded, amendable declaration are on constructive notice that their rights may change through properly adopted amendments. A declaration restriction adopted by amendment is strongly presumed valid and is enforceable against preexisting owners unless it falls within statutory limits or is wholly arbitrary, violates public policy, or abrogates a fundamental constitutional right. (Derived from Woodside Village Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Jahren (n.d.).)