Adrift in the Amendments Sea: Florida Courts Struggle for Logic and Consistency, Part I

It’s common for subdivision restrictions to be changed, and usually, no one minds. But sometimes, the changes are so unpopular that some people want to go to court to get them undone. In Florida, the courts have different rules for deciding if a change to subdivision restrictions is okay, but they generally want the change to be fair. This article talks about how those rules have developed over time, criticizes the reasons the courts have used for their rules, and suggests using different principles to decide if future changes to subdivision restrictions are allowed. In 1933, the Florida Supreme Court decided that if a restriction on a property was made for the benefit of both the owner and other property owners in the area, then those other owners can enforce the restriction. This is true even if there isn’t a specific plan for the whole area. The case involved a beauty parlor operating in a subdivision where commercial use was prohibited. The court said that the restriction could be enforced by any property owner in the subdivision, even though the owner argued there wasn’t a uniform plan for the area. The Florida Supreme Court looked at whether restrictions on land use can be enforced by people who don’t own the land in Vetzel v. Brown. A recorded agreement allowed some lots in a subdivision to be used for businesses and others for homes. Vetzel wanted to cancel the restriction on their lots. The agreement said that its rules would apply to all future owners. The court said that restrictions can only be enforced by people who don’t own the land if there is a general plan that benefits everyone. This is different from a previous case called Osius. The court also said that having separate commercial and residential lots was enough to show a general plan, which Osius didn’t say. In 1980, there was a court case called Loch Haven Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Nelle. The court had to decide if a developer’s right to approve exceptions to restrictions stopped someone else from enforcing those restrictions. The court said that the main thing to enforce the restrictions is to show that there is a general plan for the development. The court also said that even without a general plan, the person can still enforce the restrictions if there is a common benefit for all the people in the area. So, according to the court, if the restrictions are like promises connected to the land and can be enforced by any lot owner, then even someone who buys the land later can enforce the restrictions. The Reasonableness Rule originated from a court case called Flamingo Ranch, where a subdivision developer tried to amend the restrictions to allow commercial development. The court said that the developer’s power to amend the restrictions should be reasonable and not destroy the overall plan of development. This rule was also mentioned in a previous case, Johnson, where a developer reduced the minimum house size in the subdivision restrictions, but provided a waiver to protect the lot owners. The reasonableness rule is a way to protect lot owners from unreasonable changes to the subdivision restrictions. In Texas, a court allowed a change to restrictions on a property because the owners had the right to change them, as long as they didn’t completely destroy the original agreement. This rule applies to both developers and property owners. In Florida, courts have a different rule that allows changes to restrictions as long as they are reasonable and in line with the original plan for the development. In the Bay Island court case, the right to build apartments was taken away, which was a big change from the original development plan. The court made it easier to change the rules for development, even if it goes against the original plan. In another case, the court said it was okay to change the rules for building a dock, even though it went against the original plan. This makes it confusing and harder to understand what’s allowed when changing development rules. In the 1982 Nelle v. Loch Haven Homeowners’ Association case, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a developer’s power to approve exceptions to restrictive covenants is just one factor to consider in determining if a uniform plan of development was intended. This means that remote grantees can still enforce restrictions if there is a common benefit, even if the developer has the power to change the restrictions. In this case, the Florida Supreme Court found that a developer’s restrictions on land were intended to create a uniform plan of development, and that the restrictions were binding on all parties and owners. The court also stated that a developer’s power to amend the restrictions does not automatically destroy the common plan, as long as the restrictions are still enforceable by the lot owners. The court’s ruling in this case is the final word on amendments to subdivision restrictions in Florida. This passage talks about the importance of freedom in making contracts and using property under our system. It also mentions different court cases that support this principle.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/adrift-in-the-amendments-sea-florida-courts-struggle-for-logic-and-consistency-part-i/