393 So. 2d 637
Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc., a Florida not-for-profit corporation, operates a condominium development containing mobile homes situated on lots owned by the individual residents.1 In 1975, the association's Board of Directors became aware of an increase in the salinity of the two deep well systems which supplied the water for the common usage of the unit owners.2 The Board adopted a regulation restricting lawn watering to one day per week while board member Charles Burtoft conducted a study of the salinity problem, and later relaxed the restriction when salinity levels decreased.3
In November 1975, unit owners Arthur Basso and Helen Basso applied to the Board for permission to drill a shallow well on their property as allegedly required under Article 13 of the Declaration of Condominium.4 The Board did not decide the application until March 1976, at which time it denied permission even though Burtoft had informed the Board that a shallow well would not affect the condominium water supply.5 The Bassos nonetheless drilled a well in early January 1977.6
On January 31, 1977, Hidden Harbour brought an action for injunctive relief alleging that the Bassos were in violation of the use restrictions of the Declaration of Condominium by drilling an unauthorized well.7 At trial the Board articulated three reasons for the denial that had not been stated earlier: the threat of increased salinity, staining of sidewalks and other common areas, and the proliferation of more wells by other unit owners.8 The evidence at trial indicated that the Bassos' well had no effect on the increased salinity of the wells owned by Hidden Harbour.9 No discoloration of commonly owned property had occurred at the time of trial, even though the Bassos frequently used the "illicit" well for more than a year and a half.10 Finally, there was not a shred of evidence to support a finding that the Bassos' well precipitated a proliferation of other wells in Hidden Harbour or that a proliferation of wells would be detrimental.11
The trial court entered a final judgment denying Hidden Harbour's request for injunctive relief.12 Hidden Harbour appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Whether Hidden Harbour Estates was entitled to injunctive relief preventing the Bassos from maintaining a shallow water well on their property?13
In the second category of cases where a use restriction is not mandated by the declaration of condominium per se, but is instead created by the board of directors of the condominium association, the rule of reasonableness comes into vogue.14 The board is required to enact rules and make decisions that are reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness and peace of mind of the unit owners.15 In cases where the decision to allow a particular use is within the discretion of the board, the board must allow the use unless the use is demonstrably antagonistic to the legitimate objectives of the condominium association, i.e., the health, happiness and peace of mind of the individual unit owners.16
No. Hidden Harbour failed to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between its denial of the Bassos' application and the objectives which the denial sought to achieve.17 The evidence at trial indicated that the Bassos' well had no effect on the increased salinity of the wells owned by Hidden Harbour. No discoloration of commonly owned property had occurred at the time of trial, even though the Bassos frequently used the "illicit" well for more than a year and a half. There was not a shred of evidence to support a finding that the Bassos' well precipitated a proliferation of other wells in Hidden Harbour or that a proliferation of wells would be detrimental.
Hidden Harbour Estates was not entitled to injunctive relief preventing the Bassos from maintaining a shallow water well on their property.18
Related opinions on this issue
Chief Judge Letts concurred with the majority opinion with the additional comment that the Board's fear of a proliferation of wells, if a single one is allowed, would be justifiable as a matter of common sense.19 However, this comment in no way affects the failure to demonstrate any likelihood of increased salinity or staining.20 Further, if and when increased salinity or staining can be demonstrated, the Board will have the opportunity to return to court, and proliferation of wells will compound the adverse effect on the condominium property.21
Whether the evidence presented at trial supported the board of directors' denial of the Bassos' application to drill the well?22
In order for the Board to justify its denial of the Bassos' application to drill a well, it was necessary that the Board be able to demonstrate that its denial was reasonably related to the fulfillment of the desired and laudable objectives of preventing increased salinity, staining of common areas, and proliferation of wells.23
No. The Board failed to demonstrate such a reasonable relationship.24 The evidence at trial indicated that the Bassos' well had no effect on the increased salinity of the wells owned by Hidden Harbour. No discoloration of commonly owned property had occurred at the time of trial, even though the Bassos frequently used the "illicit" well for more than a year and a half. Finally, there was not a shred of evidence to support a finding that the Bassos' well precipitated a proliferation of other wells in Hidden Harbour or that a proliferation of wells would be detrimental.
The evidence presented at trial did not support the board of directors' denial of the Bassos' application to drill the well.25