| [1] |
Florida Court of Appeals |
| [2] |
CASE NO. 98-881 |
| [3] |
724 So.2d 621, 1998.FL.43282 |
| [4] |
December 23, 1998 |
| [5] |
HIGHLAND LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER P. SCHLACK, ET AL, APPELLEE. |
| [6] |
Colleen A. Braden and Harry W. Carls of Taylor and
Carls, P.a., Orlando, for Appellant.. Gary J. Cooney of Gary J. Cooney,
P.a., Tavares, for Appellees, Walter P. Schlack, George LaPenta, Russell
Roberson and William Heitmuller. |
| [7] |
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harris, J. |
| [8] |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County, Don F.
Briggs, Judge. |
| [9] |
Appellees were purchasers of property in Highland
Lakes Planned Unit Development and thus subject to the Declaration of
Restrictions covering their property. They were also members of the
Highland Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc. and were subject to the
bylaws of such group. Appellant is the homeowners association which
represents all property owners in the development. |
| [10] |
Appellees, when they read the Declaration of
Restrictions and the bylaws of the Association, believed that they were
buying into a development with limited amenities and with assessments that
would increase only in proportion to the increase in the operation and
maintenance of the amenities in place. It appears, however, that a
majority of the other purchasers read the same material and believed that
they were buying into a development that could, pursuant to appropriate
board action, expand the amenities of the development from those
originally provided subject to assessment limitations provided in the
bylaws. The issue before us is which owners read the documents correctly.
The trial Judge obviously agreed with appellees and prohibited the
expansion of the project by the acquisition of additional property. We
disagree and reverse. |
| [11] |
The Declaration of Restrictions provides that the
Association shall own such property as the developer "shall from time
to time convey, lease, or loan to it." The property acquired by
appellant which prompted this action was purchased from the developer. The
bylaws of the Association which were specifically referred to in the deed
restrictions permitted the Association to "own, buy, sell or lease
real or personal property as necessary to the exercise of its powers and
duties." The "powers and duties" of the Association
included the "right to acquire, by gift, purchase or otherwise, real
or personal property to hold the same, improve it, build upon it, operate,
maintain, convey, sell, lease, transfer, or dedicate for public use . . .
." A reading of these documents together supports the position of
appellant. |
| [12] |
The trial court in denying the Association the right
to acquire additional property relied on S & T Anchorage , Inc. v.
Lewis, 575 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 207
(Fla. 1993), which held that "[t]he articles and bylaws must be
consistent with the provisions of the superior document, the
Declaration." Appellees therefore urge that the Declaration itself
must clearly and specifically authorize the Association to acquire
additional property or else there is no authority. We, on the other hand,
have taken the position that an association's authority is derived from
the Declaration and the bylaws if the bylaws are not inconsistent with the
Declaration. See Martin v. Ocean Reef Villas Ass'n, Inc., 547 So. 2d 1237
(Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 557 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1990). We see no
inconsistency between the Restrictions and the bylaws which would prevent
the Association, assuming it does so in full compliance with the
restrictions imposed by the bylaws, from acquiring the property involved
in this action. |
| [13] |
REVERSED and REMANDED for further action consistent
with this opinion. |
| [14] |
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. |
|
