Beacon Hill Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Colfin Ah-Florida 7, LLC , 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7526 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed May 24, 2017.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D16-1185
    Lower Tribunal No. 15-21095
    ________________
    Beacon Hill Homeowners Association, Inc., et al.,
    Appellants,
    vs.
    Colfin Ah-Florida 7, LLC,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline
    Hogan Scola, Judge.
    Paige Law Group, P.A., and Robert E. Paige, for appellants.
    Law Offices of Jonathan J. Alfonso, P.A, Jonathan J. Alfonso and Carolina
    Maria Dutriz, for appellee.
    Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.
    FERNANDEZ, J.
    Beacon Hill Homeowners Association, Inc. and Old Cutler Lakes by the Bay
    Community Association, Inc. (collectively, the Associations) appeal the trial
    court’s summary final judgment in favor of Colfin Ah-Florida 7, LLC, as well as
    the respective parties’ motions for rehearing or reconsideration. We affirm,
    adopting the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Pudlit 2 Joint Venture,
    LLP v. Westwood Gardens Homeowners Association, Inc., 
    169 So. 3d 145
    (Fla.
    4th DCA 2015).
    On October 24, 2011, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association filed a
    foreclosure action in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court against a property owner.
    On February 10, 2015, the Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Court issued the
    Certificate of Title to appellee, Colfin AH-Florida 7, LLC, who was the successful
    bidder of the underlying property at the foreclosure sale. Pursuant to the recorded
    declarations of each associations, Colfin was not liable for any amounts owed by
    the previous owners of the property.
    For example, Beacon Hill’s Declaration provided:
    Section 9. SUBORDINATION OF THE LIEN TO
    MORTGAGES. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall
    be a lien superior to all other liens save and except tax liens and
    mortgage liens, provided said mortgage liens are first liens against the
    property encumbered thereby, subject only to tax liens, and said first
    mortgage secures an indebtedness which is amortized on monthly or
    quarter-annual payments over a period of not less than ten (10) years.
    The sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to the foreclosure or any
    proceeding in lieu thereof of a first mortgage meeting the above
    qualifications, shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to
    payments which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or
    transfer shall relieve such Lot from liability for any assessments
    thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof.
    Old Cutler’s Declaration stated:
    2
    Section 10: Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages. The lien of the
    assessments provided for herein shall be a lien superior to all other
    liens save and except tax liens and mortgage liens, provided said
    mortgage liens are first liens against the property encumbered thereby,
    subject only to tax liens, and said first mortgage secures an
    indebtedness which is amortized on monthly or quarter-annual
    payments over a period of not less than ten (10) years. The sale or
    transfer of any Lot pursuant to the foreclosure or any proceeding in
    lieu thereof of a first mortgage meeting the above qualifications, shall
    extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments which became
    due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such
    Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or
    from the lien thereof.
    In May 2015, Colfin received a claim of lien letter from each association.
    The first letter claimed Colfin owed $7,463.25 to Beacon Hill for $1,268.25 in
    assessments, $6,025.00 in attorney’s fees, and $170.00 in costs. The second lien
    letter claimed Colfin owed $8,072.40 to Old Cutler for $1,998.40 in assessments,
    $6,024.00 in attorney’s fees, and $50.00 in costs. Colfin filed a complaint to quiet
    title and for a declaratory judgment, contending that the Declaration prohibited
    collection of the amounts the Associations claimed were owed.
    The trial court held a hearing on Colfin’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
    Colfin contended that the Declarations prohibited the collection of the amounts the
    Associations claimed were owed. The Associations argued that language in the
    Declarations allowing the Associations to exercise any powers afforded to a
    corporation amounted to what is referred to as “Kaufman” language, referencing
    Kaufman v. Shere, 
    347 So. 2d 627
    (Fla. 3DCA 1977). The Associations further
    3
    argued that their Declarations incorporated future changes in the law, and thus the
    joint and several liability provision of section 720.3085(2)(b) Florida Statutes
    (2016) was incorporated into the terms of their Declarations.1 At the conclusion of
    the hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of Colfin, finding that the Declaration of
    the Association of each of the associations controlled. The Associations’ separate
    motions for rehearing were denied. The Associations now appeal these rulings.
    The standard of review on appeal for a motion for summary judgment based
    on a quiet title action is de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach,
    
    760 So. 2d 126
    , 130 (Fla. 2000). The standard of review on appeal of a motion for
    rehearing is abuse of discretion. Villas at Laguna Bay Condo. Assn. Inc. v.
    Citimortgage, Inc., 
    190 So. 3d 200
    (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
    The Associations contend that they are allowed to avoid the Declarations
    which govern them. We disagree and follow our previous ruling in Garden of
    Kendall Condominium v. Valores Agregados, 
    187 So. 3d 252
    (Fla. 3d DCA 2016),
    which adopted the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Pudlit 2 Joint
    Venture, LLP v. Westwood Gardens Homeowners Association, Inc., 
    169 So. 3d 145
    (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), by citation in a per curiam affirmance.
    1 Section 720.3085((2)(b) provides that a third party purchasing a property is
    jointly and severally liable with the previous owner “for all unpaid assessments
    that came due up to the time of transfer of title.”
    4
    In Pudlit, the plaintiff/appellant Pudlit 2 Joint Venture, LLP purchased two
    properties, at a foreclosure sale, located within communities maintained by
    defendant/appellee Westwood Gardens Homeowners Association, Inc. Westwood
    demanded payment for all unpaid association assessments left unpaid prior to
    Pudlit’s ownership. 
    Id. at 147.
    Pudlit sued Westwood for breach of declaration and declaratory relief,
    alleging that any liens for past due assessments were extinguished by the
    foreclosure judgments pursuant to the terms of the association's Declaration of
    Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. 
    Id. Westwood cross-moved
    for summary
    judgment, arguing that section 720.3085, Florida Statutes (2013), mandated that
    Pudlit was jointly and severally liable with the prior owners for all unpaid
    assessments on the subject properties. 
    Id. Pudlit contended
    that “section 720.3085
    did not impose liability upon appellant, because the declaration's express terms
    were not invalidated by the statute or waived by appellant, and imposition of the
    statute against the declaration's express terms would unconstitutionally impair its
    contractual rights.” 
    Id. The trial
    court denied Pudlit’s summary judgment motion
    and granted Westwood’s cross-motion. 
    Id. 5 On
    appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal sided with Pudlit, stating:
    The association's argument that the legislature's enactment of
    section 720.3085 amended the declaration is without merit. A
    declaration can be amended according to the procedure outlined
    within the declaration, or according to statute, by two-thirds' approval
    of the homeowners. See Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs.,
    LLLP, 
    137 So. 3d 1081
    , 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Generally, “repeal
    or invalidation by implication [of restrictions and provisions in a
    declaration] is not favored and generally will not be presumed absent
    a clear legislative intent.” United States v. Forest Hill Gardens E.
    Condo. Ass'n, 
    990 F. Supp. 2d 1344
    , 1349 (S.D. Fla. 2014). The
    declaration here provides the following amendment procedures:
    [A]s long as Declarant controls the Association, the
    Declarant may make and file any amendment hereto
    required by the Declarant or by the Federal National
    Mortgage Association or Veteran's Administration or
    Federal Housing Administration or Federal Home Loan
    Mortgage Corporation or any governmental body with
    jurisdiction over the Property, provided said amendment
    does not materially, adversely affect the rights of a Lot
    Owner, as determined solely by the Declarant, by an
    instrument executed only be the Developer. Such
    amendment need not be signed or executed in the manner
    otherwise provided for herein.
    The only provisions in the declaration providing for automatic
    amendment based on legislative action are limited to amendments
    which are “required” by the plain language of the legislation. Nothing
    in the language of section 720.3085(2)(b) demonstrates that it is
    “required” to be adopted by Florida homeowners' associations. Thus,
    the association cannot argue that section 720.3085, as enacted by the
    Florida legislature, automatically amended the association's
    declaration.
    The case before us is exactly on point with Pudlit. The joint and several
    liability of section 720.3085(2)(b) was not incorporated into the terms of the
    6
    Associations’ Declarations.     Accordingly, under the language adopted by the
    Associations in their Declarations, Colfin was not liable for any past due
    assessments, attorney’s fees, or costs of the prior owner when it purchased the
    property in question at the foreclosure sale, for the reasons set forth in Pudlit.2
    We thus affirm the trial court’s summary final judgment entered in favor of
    Colfin. We further affirm the trial court’s denial of Beacon’s motion for rehearing
    and reconsideration and the denial of Old Cutler’s motion for rehearing, as the trial
    court did not abuse its discretion in denying these motions.
    Affirmed.
    2 The Associations claim that language contained in their Declarations asserting
    that the Associations “have and exercise any and all powers, rights, and privileges
    which a corporation . . . may now or hereafter exercise,” is Kaufman language.
    However, we do not agree because the language in the Declarations only
    references what constitutes the legal activities which the Associations can engage
    in pursuant to Chapter 617, which allows for not-for-profit corporations. As Coflin
    points out, in order for the Associations’ language to be considered Kaufman
    language, the Associations would have to specifically incorporate the
    Homeowner’s Association Act, as amended from time to time. However, there is
    no such language in the Associations’ Declarations.
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 3D16-1185

Citation Numbers: 221 So. 3d 710, 2017 WL 2265370, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7526

Judges: Rothenberg, Salter, Fernandez

Filed Date: 5/24/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024