Association Assessments Must Be Paid: Florida Depends on It
In the recent decision of First Equitable Realty III v. Grandview Palace Condominium Association, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in decreasing the amount of interest awarded to the association in a collection case due to “equitable considerations” and reiterated that equity does not afford defenses to delinquent unit owners in such actions.
May 16, 2018 at 10:14 AM
4 minute read
In the recent decision of First Equitable Realty III v. Grandview Palace Condominium Association, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled that the trial court erred in decreasing the amount of interest awarded to the association in a collection case due to “equitable considerations” and reiterated that equity does not afford defenses to delinquent unit owners in such actions.
In First Equitable, the condominium association filed suit to recover unpaid assessments from a delinquent unit owner which asserted counterclaims for unjust enrichment and rescission. As part of the defense, the unit owner claimed that it was not responsible for the assessments because the association was itself responsible for protracted litigation giving rise to the association's right to pursue the unpaid assessments and that the association had failed to mitigate its damages. The trial court ruled in favor of the association, but reduced the amount of interest on the unpaid assessments awarded because of “equitable considerations.”
On appeal, the Third District affirmed the entry of final summary judgment in the association's favor but held that the reduction in interest owed on the unpaid assessments was improper. Judge Scales on behalf of a unanimous panel wrote: “Equity has no role. Under the plain and unambiguous language of [Florida Statute] section 718.116(3), the association was entitled to recover interest at the rate provided in the declaration, from the due date until paid. The trial court had no discretion to award anything less in this case.”
Viewed in the context of earlier decisions regarding unit owners' refusal to pay assessments, this case is the most recent of Florida courts' affirmance of an association's right to collect lawful assessments. In Gerecitano v. Barrwood HOA, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a unit owner could not refuse to pay assessments because the association manager was not properly licensed, in violation of Florida law. Similarly, in Abbey Park Homeowners Association v. Bowen, the court rejected an owner's defense that the association's failure to maintain common elements justified the refusal to pay assessments. A previous panel of the Third District in Coral Way Condominium Investments v. 21/22 Condominium Association, reviewed a unit owner's defense to payment of a special assessment on the grounds that it would not have been necessary absent breach of a fiduciary duty which resulted in depletion of the association's funds. The Coral Way court rejected the unit owner's defenses on the well-established principle that a unit owner's duty to pay assessments is conditioned solely on whether the owner holds title to the unit and whether the assessment conforms to the association's constituent documents and the Condominium Act.
With the First Equitable court's extension of the above principle to include interest owed on past due assessment payments, it is clear that an aggrieved unit owner cannot look to equity to justify a refusal to pay assessments. Rather, a unit owner who has an issue with the association must pay lawfully imposed assessments and challenge the board action by another means such as by bringing a legal challenge to an association action or inaction (such as failure to maintain common elements) or seeking to replace the association board through a recall or election.
Florida courts clearly recognize that the financial stability of the thousands of community associations throughout Florida depends upon timely payment of assessments to exist and serve the needs of their members and will likely continue to support them by applying such precedent in future cases.
Jed Frankel is a partner with Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet and focuses his practice on community association and dispute resolution. He can be reached at [email protected] or 954-894-8000. For more info visit eisingerlaw.com or facebook.com/EisingerLaw.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readMiami Lawyers Beat Other Local Sectors, Attorneys Elsewhere in Office Usage
3 minute read'Would've Been Snoring Without Ya': Fort Lauderdale Jury Awards $4.5 Million in Condo Investment Spat
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250