FREE UNITHOLDERS OF OUTDOOR RESORTS AT ORLANDO, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
OUTDOOR RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Free Unitholders of Outdoor Resorts at Orlando appealed from a judgment enforcing an exclusive 99-year rental provision in the condominium's Declaration that granted the developer exclusive rights to rent lots. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the provision was not unconscionable and was enforceable against lot owners who had constructive notice of its terms.
The exclusive rental provision is valid and enforceable. Appellants failed to prove the provision was unconscionable under the Steinhardt standard; the recorded Declaration provided constructive notice to all potential purchasers, no owner was forced to purchase, and the terms do not amount to an outrageous degree of unfairness.
[1] A 99-year exclusive rental provision in a Declaration of Condominium is enforceable when recorded prior to the sale of the first lot.
[2] A Declaration of Condominium recorded prior to the sale of the first lot provides constructive notice of its contents to potential lot purchasers.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellants have failed to carry their burden proving that Article XI is unconscionable and unenforceable as outlined in Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).”
Establishes the legal standard and burden of proof for challenging the enforceability of the rental provision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOutdoor Resorts at Orlando is a recreational vehicle condominium where the Declaration of Condominium, recorded before the first lot sale, granted the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Declaration Of Condominium cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Free Unitholders of Outdoor Resorts at Orlando, Inc., a group of lot owners at a recreational vehicle condominium known as Outdoor Resorts at Orlando, appeal from a final judgment enjoining the lot owners from renting their lots in violation of a 99-year exclusive rental provision in the Declaration of Condominium and declaring the provision to be valid and enforceable. We affirm.
Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium specifically provides that the developer of the project, Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc., shall have for a period of 99 years the exclusive right, in the absence of use by the lot owner or his designated guest, to rent the lots. The article also provides that the developer shall undertake an advertising program to promote lot rentals and split the gross amount of rent equally with the affected lot owner. The Declaration of Condominium was recorded in the public records prior to the sale of the first lot and the developer actively operated the rental program from the inception of the project.
Appellants have failed to carry their burden proving that Article XI is unconscionable and unenforceable as outlined in Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The recording of the Declaration gave each potential lot purchaser at least constructive knowledge of its contents. No lot owner was forced to rent his lot. The terms of the exclusive rental provision do not amount to an outrageous degree of unfairness. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
The developer has filed a cross-appeal from a separate judgment denying its motion for attorney’s fees and granting it only part of its court costs. Its notice of appeal was filed beyond the jurisdictional thirty days allowed for filing a direct appeal from a judgment. Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b). Because the developer did not appeal from the same judgment from which the original appeal was taken, the procedural rule concerning commencement of a cross-appeal does not apply. Webb General Contracting, Inc. v. PDM Hydrostorage, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the developer’s appeal. Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The developer’s appeal is dismissed.
Affirmed; cross-appeal dismissed.
DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gainesville Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…judicial conscience.” See, e.g., Belcher v. Kier, 558 So. 2d 1039, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (declining to equate “unconseionability” with mere “unreasonableness”); Free Unitholders of Outdoor Resorts at Orlando, Inc. v. Outdoor Resorts of Am., Inc., 460 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Steinhardt, 422 So. 2d at 889. III. As discussed above, to determine whether a contract is procedurally unconscionable, a court must look to the “circumstances surrounding the transaction” to determine whether the complain…
-
Sims v. State, 998 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 2008)…ex reí. Cantera v. Dist. Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 555 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1990) (civil judgment obtained against a bank); Donin v. Goss, 69 So. 2d 316 (Fla.1954); Free Unitholders of Outdoor Resorts at Orlando, Inc. v. Outdoor Resorts of Am., Inc., 460 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Dibble v. Dibble, 377 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Oceania Joint Venture v. Ocean View of Miami, Ltd., 707 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Salinger v. Salinger, 100 So. 2d 39…1 / 2
-
Breakstone v. Baron's OF Surfside, Inc., 528 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…notice of appeal from this separately appealable order because the notice was untimely filed below more than thirty days after the rendition of the said order. Free Unitholders of Outdoor Resorts at Orlando, Inc. v. Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc., 460 So. 2d 382 (Fla.2d DCA 1984); Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. PDM Hydrostorage, Inc., 397 So. 2d at 1060; Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b). To avoid this inexorable result, however, the appellee contends that it has a right to cross appeal the adverse attorney’s fee ruli…
Authorities Cited
- Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Webb Gen. Contracting, Inc. v. PDM Hydrostorage, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)