A Florida court has reversed a lower court ruling that allowed a homeowners association to include properties in its restrictions without following proper legal procedures. This decision affects homeowners Lucas Hogg and Dominic Browne-Cason, who argued that their properties were not legally part of the Villages of Bloomingdale community's recorded declaration. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory limitations in property law.
The case, Lucas G. Hogg and Dominic Browne-Cason v. Villages of Bloomingdale I Homeowners Association, Inc., was filed in the District Court of Appeal of Florida under docket number 2D21-3724. The dispute arose when the Villages of Bloomingdale I Homeowners Association sought to retroactively include properties from Phases 2 and 3 of the community into its governing documents, despite the fact that these properties were not originally included in the recorded declaration.
Hogg and Browne-Cason, who own homes in these unrecorded phases, contested the association's attempt to enforce restrictions that they argued did not apply to their properties. The homeowners claimed that the association's action was barred by the statute of limitations, specifically section 95.11(2)(b) of the Florida Statutes, which requires that actions on a written instrument be brought within five years of the event that triggered the lawsuit.
The background of the case dates back to 2004 when the Villages of Bloomingdale Developers, Inc. recorded a declaration that outlined various easements, covenants, and restrictions on the property. However, the declaration only included properties from Phase 1, leaving out the subsequent phases where Hogg and Browne-Cason purchased their homes. In 2019, the association discovered the omission and sought consent from homeowners in Phases 2 and 3 to retroactively include their properties in the declaration. While many homeowners agreed, Hogg and Browne-Cason did not.
The association then initiated a reformation action, aiming to amend the declaration to include the properties from Phases 2 and 3. The case moved to an evidentiary hearing in September 2020, where Hogg and Browne-Cason were the only remaining defendants. The circuit court initially ruled in favor of the association, stating that the statute of limitations did not apply because the action was not about enforcing a contract but rather about reforming documents to reflect the parties' intentions.
However, the court's ruling was challenged by Hogg and Browne-Cason, who argued that the reformation action should have been subject to the five-year statute of limitations outlined in section 95.11(2)(b). They contended that the association's claim accrued when the declaration was recorded in 2005 and that the association failed to file its lawsuit until 2019, well beyond the statutory limit.
On March 17, 2023, the District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its ruling, stating that the circuit court had erred in applying the statute of limitations. The court emphasized that section 95.11(2)(b) applies to both legal and equitable actions, and that the association's reformation claim fell under its purview. The court noted, "We conclude that the five-year limitation of section 95.11(2)(b) should have been applied to this lawsuit filed, as it was, fifteen years after the declaration's recordation."
The judges presiding over the case were Judge Lucas, with Judges Silberman and Labrit concurring in the decision. The ruling reversed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of the association and remanded the case for further proceedings in line with the appellate court's opinion.
This ruling has significant implications for homeowners associations and property owners in Florida. It reinforces the necessity for associations to adhere to statutory limitations when seeking to enforce or reform governing documents. The decision also highlights the importance of clear and accurate record-keeping in property declarations, as failure to do so can lead to disputes and legal challenges.
Going forward, the ruling serves as a reminder to homeowners associations to ensure that their governing documents are comprehensive and accurately reflect the properties they encompass. Homeowners like Hogg and Browne-Cason can feel reassured that their rights are protected under Florida law, especially when it comes to the enforcement of property restrictions.
As for what’s next, the case has been remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen how the association will respond to the appellate court's ruling and whether they will seek to amend their approach in light of the decision. There is no indication in the court filing that the case will be appealed further at this time.