CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 8072, 2008 WL 1958678
...n 2000, it found them valid and enforceable, including the amendment restricting each parking space to one vehicle. The trial court found that the driveway to the east of unit 1 is not an appurtenance to the unit, is not a part of the unit, and that section 719.1055, Florida Statutes, does not prevent the Association from amending the bylaws to restrict the use of the parking space to one vehicle....
...A trial court's findings of fact in a declaratory judgment action will be upheld if supported by competent substantial evidence. Conversely, any conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id. at 796-97 (citations omitted). This issue turns on whether the parking space in question is an appurtenance to unit 1. Section 719.1055(1), Florida Statutes (2000), provides: Unless otherwise provided in the original cooperative documents, no amendment thereto may change the configuration or size of any cooperative unit in any material fashion, materially alter or mo...
...majority of total voting interests for amendments under this section, unless required by any governmental entity. Therefore, if the parking space is an appurtenance, the Association cannot materially alter or modify it without McAllister's consent. Section 719.105(1), Florida Statutes (2000), addresses appurtenances in the context of cooperatives: (1) Each cooperative parcel has, as appurtenances thereto: (a) Evidence of membership, ownership of shares, or other interest in the association with the full voting rights appertaining thereto....
...ght originated from the cooperative documents, [shows] the legal description of that area, and [establishes that] the legal right to [his] interest [in the parking space is] recorded." However, this claim is based upon an erroneous interpretation of section 719.105(1). A party is not required to prove all of the subsections of section 719.105(1) to establish an appurtenance. Rather, section 719.105(1) lists several types of appurtenances. The plain language of paragraph (e), "Any other appurtenances provided for in the cooperative documents," does not require a legal description or recordation. See § 719.105(1)(e), Fla....
...Because we find that the parking space is an appurtenance to unit 1, we must next determine whether the 2000 bylaw amendment limiting parking to "one vehicle per space" materially altered or modified the appurtenance, such that McAllister's consent was required. See § 719.1055(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 754, 2009 WL 249248
...("KLOR") seeks a writ of certiorari quashing a non-final trial court order entered on KLOR's petition for declaratory judgment. The trial court found that the proposed site plan at issue in this case cannot be approved without the votes of 100% of KLOR's shareholders, as provided by section 719.1055(1), Florida Statutes (2008)....
...Some of the residents (collectively, "the Intervenors") felt that these proposed changes unfairly affected their interests. Accordingly, they moved to intervene, arguing in part, that the proposed site plan could not be approved without 100% voter approval, as provided by section 719.1055(1)....
...The Intervenors argued that 100% approval by the shareholders was required. The trial court found that: (1) KLOR is a statutory cooperative, generally subject to Florida law as provided in chapter 719; and (2) approval of the proposed site plan required the votes of 100% of the shareholders, pursuant to section 719.1055(1)....
...t failed to comply with certain technical provisions contained in Florida's cooperative statute. See §
719.1035(1), Fla. Stat. (2008) (providing that the cooperative's documents "must be recorded in the county in which the cooperative is located"); §
719.105(1)(a), Fla....
...Morsani,
790 So.2d 1071, 1076-77 (Fla.2001) (discussing equitable estoppel and stating that the doctrine bars the wrongdoer from asserting a shortcoming directly attributable to the wrongdoer's misconduct and profiting from his or her own misconduct). THE SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF SECTION
719.1055 Because this Court agrees with the trial court's finding that, as a general matter, KLOR is subject to the provisions of chapter 719, the instant petition turns solely upon whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it found the 100% shareholder approval requirement of section
719.1055, specifically applicable to the proposed site plan vote. Section
719.1055(1) provides that amendments to a cooperative's Bylaws affecting the size or configuration of a cooperative unit may require the approval of the affected shareholder, all lien holders, and the record owners of all other units. However, and critically, this 100% approval requirement is only triggered where the cooperative's original documents are silent as to an amendment enacting such a change. See §
719.1055(1) (" Unless otherwise provided in the original cooperative documents, no amendment thereto may change the configuration or size of any cooperative unit in any material fashion....") (emphasis added)....
...mposed by adoption of the proposed site plan. And those documents provide that if 75% of the Board of Directors and 51% of unit owners approve, then the amendment passes. [2] Therefore, according to the above-emphasized language *35 at the outset of section 719.1055, subsection (1), the 100% approval requirement in the statute does not apply, and the trial court's specific application of the statute was a departure from the essential requirements of the law....
