But Is It a Condominium? Village of Doral Place Association, Inc., v. Ru4 Real, Inc.

The court case Village of Doral Place Association, Inc. v. RU4 Real, Inc. is about whether a tax deed for a condominium common area was valid. The court said it wasn’t, but they mixed up condos and subdivisions. This article explains the mix-up and shows how the case doesn’t set a precedent for turning subdivision common areas into condo common elements. A swimming pool was built on a small piece of land in a neighborhood in Miami. The land was sold to a group of people who put up a fence around the pool, keeping the other residents from using it. The neighborhood association went to court to fight the sale of the land and to keep the pool open for everyone to use. The court said that the sale of the land was not allowed and the new owners couldn’t keep the pool to themselves. The court had to decide between two conflicting laws about who owned a swimming pool in a housing community. They decided that one law was more important and invalidated the sale of the pool to someone else. They made the buyers get their money back and the association got the pool back. But the court made a mistake in understanding the laws about housing communities. The court made a mistake by treating the common areas of a subdivision like the common elements of a condominium. They said that the terms are the same, but they’re actually different. If other courts start to agree with this mistake, it could cause a lot of confusion for homeowner associations and lot owners. The court made a mistake in calling Village of Doral Place a condominium. It is not a condominium, and the association does not have the word “condominium” in its name for that reason. Tract F and the swimming pool are also not part of any condominium. The “Village of Doral Place” is a group of residential units in the Doral Park Country Club Villas subdivision. It includes two parcels of land called the “Village Lands.” The units were meant to be condominiums, and the common areas were for all the unit owners to use. This means that some areas are only for the owners of the units, while others are for all the owners in the subdivision. Between 1984 and 1990, Tract A was turned into 12 separate condominiums called Doral Park Country Club Villas Condominium No. 1, 2, 3, etc. Each condominium had one or more buildings, and each building’s boundary was a bit larger than the building itself. Altogether, there were 248 units. Each condominium had its own association, and the Village of Doral Place Association, Inc. was responsible for the common areas. In 1990, an amendment was made to allow for the development of houses in the Village Lands. The townhomes tract was created that year as a subdivision with 83 lots. The Village of Doral Place had a total of 331 residential units, made up of 248 condominium units and 83 lots in the subdivision. This is important because the court mistakenly referred to the 331 units as part of a single, non-existent condominium called the “Village of Doral Place.”

The Village of Doral Place is similar to another planned community, which was reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court. In that case, the court ruled that the community association was not a condominium association. The Florida legislature later amended the law to confirm that associations governing both condominium units and lots are not condominium associations.

Tract F was not part of any of the 12 condominiums, and it was not even located within the Village Lands. However, the declaration allowed the developer to designate additional lands as common areas, and Tract F was likely designated as a common area after the swimming pool was built.

If Tract F is to become part of a condominium, there must be a condominium for it to be absorbed into. The court mistakenly identified the declaration as a condominium declaration at this point. The court made a mistake because they called the property a condominium when it’s not actually a condominium. The declaration for the property doesn’t meet the requirements for a condominium declaration. This means that the Village of Doral Place is not a condominium, so its common areas can’t be common elements. Also, the land called Tract F was not included in the legal description for any condominium property. So, it’s not part of the common elements. The actual declarations for the 12 Doral Park Country Club Villas didn’t include Tract F either. The court’s decision in the case of Village of Doral Place Association was based on a misunderstanding of the law. The court wrongly considered a piece of land, called Tract F, to be part of a condominium’s common elements when it was actually just a subdivision common area. This led to confusion about how the land should be taxed. The laws the court used to make its decision didn’t actually apply to Tract F. There is a newer law that might apply, but it’s unclear how it would work in this situation. Ultimately, the court’s decision doesn’t set a good example for future cases. The Village of Doral Place Association won a court case that helped them get back ownership of their community swimming pool. The buyers of Tract F also benefited because they got their money back. If the court had ruled differently, the buyers would have been stuck with a parcel of land that they couldn’t use or sell. The court’s decision helped both the association and the buyers, even though it raised some legal questions. The association is named in the Doral Park Country Club Villas Condominium No. 12 Plat, recorded in 1984 in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Village of Doral Place Association sued the buyers of a property for not paying their association fees. They later added the property appraiser and tax collector as defendants when they tried to invalidate the tax deed. The court ruled in favor of the association. The buyers tried to argue that the taxes had been paid, but the court did not agree. The court rejected the county’s argument about the difference between common elements of a condominium and non-condominium common areas. The court pointed out a mistake the county made in its argument, which seems to discredit their otherwise correct position. “Association” refers to a group that runs shared areas owned by unit owners. Tract F was originally only for golf course use, but a swimming pool was later approved. The declaration mentions common areas, but it’s unclear if Tract F was designated as one. Common areas don’t have to be in a subdivision and can include unplatted property. Florida law states that ad valorem taxes and assessments must be assessed against individual condominium or subdivision parcels, and not against the property as a whole. This means that taxes and assessments cannot be separately assessed against recreational facilities or common elements owned by the condominium association or used exclusively for the benefit of lot owners in a subdivision. Residents have the right to use and enjoy these common areas. J. Michael Hartenstine is a lawyer in Sarasota who specializes in helping businesses and homeowners with their real estate needs. He is a member of a special committee that focuses on condominium and planned development law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/but-is-it-a-condominium-village-of-doral-place-association-inc-v-ru4-real-inc/