HOLIDAY PINES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ALEX ROWEN; THERESA ROWEN; GARY D. SCRIBNER AND KERIANN SCRIBNER, APPELLEES
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.
A homeowners association lacks standing to enforce restrictive covenants if it has not been assigned the developer's right to enforce them or is not the developer's direct successor.
A homeowners association sued to enforce restrictive covenants. The trial court found the action should fail due to ambiguities and selective enforcem…
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 Enforcement Of Restrictive Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER. Judge.
We reverse the final judgment in favor of the owners in this action by a homeowners association to enforce restrictive covenants. Although the court found that the action should fail because of ambiguities and selective enforcement, we conclude that the association lacked standing to bring the action.
Initially, we note that our decision in Holiday Pines Property Owners’ Ass’n v. Wetherington, 596 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), involving the same development and homeowners association, did not address the issue of standing and thus represents no holding by us on that issue. We also reject the association’s argument that we should decline to address this issue of standing because of mootness or other procedural grounds.
In Palm Point Property Owners’ Ass’n v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1993), the court declined to extend associational standing to a voluntary homeowners association unless the association was the assignee of the developer’s right to enforce the restrictive covenants or the direct successor of the developer’s interest. Here, neither fact is true.
This association was never the holder of title to any benefitted land and has no direct interest in the enforcement of the covenants. Moreover there are no provisions in the relevant documents for the association to seek judicial enforcement of the covenants. Accordingly, under Pisarski, the association lacked standing to bring this action to enforce the parking regulation at issue.
REVERSED.
KLEIN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowen v. Holiday Pines Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 759 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…nc. v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla.1993), to argue that the Association lacked the requisite standing. This court’s opinion determined that the Association lacked standing, relying on Palm Point. See Holiday Pines Property Owners Ass’n v. Roiven, 679 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We did not address any other issue in the case. Two aspects of the opinion are most curious. First, the opinion indicates that the case is “REVERSED”; the first sentence of the opinion reads, “We reverse the final judgment in f…
-
Rosalba Alcarez Nieto and Faviola Rodriguez v. Mobile Gardens Ass'n OF Englewood, Inc., 130 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…’s right to enforce the restrictive covenants, or it is the direct successor of the developer’s interest. Palm Point Prop. Owners’ Ass’n of Charlotte Cnty., Inc. v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla.1998); Holiday Pines Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Rowen, 679 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla.4th DCA 1996). Mobile Gardens II argues that by virtue of the 2000 assignment it is the assignee of the developer, but this argument does not take into account the fact that the developer had already assigned those rights to Mobile Gardens…
Authorities Cited
- Palm Point Prop. Owners' Ass'n of Charlotte Cnty., Inc. v. Pisarski, 626 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 1993)
- Sec. Ins. Co. OF Hartford v. Sapienza, 596 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)