2D10-277 / Homeowner's Assoc. of Overlook, Inc. v. Seabrooke Homeowner's Assoc., Inc.

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Second District Court of Appeal » 2011 » 2D10-277 / Homeowner's Assoc. of Overlook, Inc. v. Seabrooke Homeowner's Assoc., Inc.

State: Florida

Court: Florida Southern District Court

Docket No: 2D10-277

Case Date: 04/29/2011

Plaintiff: 2D10-277 / Homeowner's Assoc. of Overlook, Inc.

Defendant: Seabrooke Homeowner's Assoc., Inc.

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION OF OVERLOOK, INC., ) ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) SEABROOKE HOMEOWNERS' ) ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for) profit corporation; PROMENADE ) HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; a ) Florida not-for-profit corporation; VISTAS ) HOMEOWNERS' OF SEABROOKE, INC., ) a Florida not-for-profit corporation; CITY OF ) LARGO, a municipal corporation; ) W. DOUGLAS BERRY; MARTHA F. ) BERRY; PIERRE BOGACZ; LEE HAAS; ) AMY HAAS; MICHAEL SEXTON; and ) ROBIN SEXTON, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed April 29, 2011. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; W. Douglas Baird, Judge. Steven H. Mezer, Keith D. Skorewicz, and Charles Evans Glausier of Bush Ross, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Case No. 2D10-277

Gary M. Schaaf, Brian C. Willis, and Astrid Guardado of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellees Seabrooke Homeowners' Association, Inc.; Promenade Homeowners' Association, Inc.; and Vistas Homeowners' Association of Seabrooke, Inc. Lee L. Haas of Haas & Castillo, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellees W. Douglas Berry, Martha Berry, Pierre Bogacz, Lee Haas, Amy Haas, Michael Sexton, and Robin Sexton. No appearance for Appellee City of Largo.

MORRIS, Judge. Homeowner's Association of Overlook, Inc. (Overlook), appeals an order dismissing with prejudice its complaint seeking declaratory relief and relief from an earlier judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We affirm the dismissal of the count seeking relief from judgment under rule 1.540(b) as well as the count seeking a declaratory judgment that the earlier judgment is invalid, but we reverse the dismissal of the count seeking declaratory judgment as to the rights of Overlook's members and remand for further proceedings. I. Facts Overlook is a subdivision of multifamily homes within the larger Seabrooke development. In addition to Overlook, there are two other subdivisions within the Seabrooke development, Promenade and Vistas, both of which include single family homes. All homeowners in the three subdivisions are required to be members of the Seabrooke Homeowners' Association, Inc. (Seabrooke). In addition, each subdivision has its own homeowners' association with separate declarations affecting only the

-2-

properties in each of those respective subdivisions.1 Accordingly, each neighborhood is governed by its own declarations as well as the Seabrooke master declaration. In May 2006, seven individual members of Seabrooke, who live in the Seabrooke subdivisions other than the Overlook subdivision, obtained a final judgment against Seabrooke. The trial court ruled that Seabrooke's conveyance of its roads to the City of Largo was null and void. The judgment declared Seabrooke "to be solely and exclusively responsible for repairing and maintaining the subject roads and for enforcing the restrictive covenants related thereto." In December 2006, Overlook filed an action against Seabrooke; Promenade Homeowners' Association, Inc.; Vistas Homeowners' Association, Inc.; the City of Largo; and the seven individual homeowners who obtained the judgment against Seabrooke in May 2006. In its complaint, Overlook sought a declaratory judgment as to its rights under the 2006 judgment and the Seabrooke master declaration. Overlook claimed that under the Seabrooke master declaration, Seabrooke members are not responsible for maintaining the roads in the Promenade and Vistas subdivisions and that the Promenade and Vistas declarations require the residents of those subdivisions to pay for the maintenance of the roads in those respective subdivisions. Overlook argued that the 2006 judgment left Overlook in doubt about its rights and responsibilities regarding road maintenance because the 2006 judgment holds Seabrooke members responsible for maintaining the roads in the Seabrooke development, i.e, including the

Seabrooke, consisting of the three subdivisions within it, is governed by the master declarations of covenants, easements, and restrictions. Overlook is governed by its declaration of restrictions. Promenade is governed by its master declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. Vistas is governed by its master declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions. -3-

1

roads in the Promenade and Vistas subdivisions. Overlook also sought a declaration that the 2006 judgment was invalid because it failed to include Overlook as an indispensable party. After Overlook filed its complaint, the case was transferred by order of the chief judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit to the trial judge who entered the 2006 judgment, but that judge recused himself "to allow a neutral party--a new trial judge, who was not involved in the first go-around[--]to make a decision on whether or not the prior ruling was made in error and should be set aside and proceed therefore." Overlook's case was then assigned to a successor judge. The appellees then filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In September 2007, the trial court granted the appellees' motions to dismiss, concluding that Overlook has no standing to seek declaratory relief because there was no allegation that Overlook as a homeowner's association will bear any responsibility for the maintenance of the roads in the Seabrooke development. The trial court ruled that the Overlook members are not obligated for the road assessments as members of Overlook but as members of Seabrooke. Overlook then filed an amended complaint, asserting the same claims for declaratory relief as well as a new claim for relief from the 2006 judgment under rule 1.540(b).2 Overlook contended that the 2006 judgment granted relief that was never

In the meantime, Overlook also filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to rule 1.540(b) and a motion to intervene in the original case that resulted in the 2006 judgment. That original case was assigned to a successor judge who presided over a hearing along with the successor judge in the new action filed by Overlook. The successor judge in the original case ruled that Overlook was not an indispensable party and that the 2006 judgment was not void based on fraud. Overlook appealed, and this court affirmed. See Ciarlo v. Berry, 3 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (table decision). -4-

2

pleaded and that the judgment was the result of fraud on the court. The amended complaint also stated that the action was brought by Overlook on behalf of all its association members. The appellees again filed motions to dismiss. The trial court again granted the motions to dismiss, finding that in the original suit against Seabrooke, the Overlook members had standing by virtue of their status as members of Seabrooke and that they therefore cannot now come back and challenge the 2006 judgment entered in favor of Seabrooke. The trial court also ruled that Overlook could not collaterally attack the 2006 judgment. The trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice in December 2009, and Overlook now appeals. II. Analysis On appeal, Overlook contends that the trial court erred in dismissing its amended complaint on the basis that Overlook lacked standing to file its complaint for declaratory relief. It argues that the individual members of Overlook have a financial interest separate from that of the other members of Seabrooke and that Overlook has standing to bring the suit for declaratory relief on behalf of the Overlook members pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.221 and section 720.303, Florida Statutes (2007). We agree. The amended complaint properly alleged an action by Overlook on behalf of its members. See Fla. Pritikin Ctr., Inc. v. Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass'n, 753 So. 2d 798, 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). The sole requirement for the bundling of a class is that the members of the association have a common interest regarding the common elements of the property.

Download 2D10-277.pdf