Neuman v. Grandview At Emerald Hills, Inc

861 So.2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Section 718.123, Florida Statutes (2002) precludes condominium rules from unreasonably restricting a unit owner's right to peaceably assemble. D is a condominium association with 442 members. Ps reside at Grandview condominium during the winter months. The common elements include an auditorium that members can reserve for social gatherings and meetings. D enacted a rule governing the use of the auditorium in 1982, which provided that the auditorium could be used for meetings or functions of groups, including religious groups, when at least eighty percent of the members were residents of Grandview condominium. In January 2001, several unit owners reserved the auditorium between 8:30 and noon on Saturday mornings. While they indicated they were reserving it for a party, they actually conducted religious services. Approximately forty condominium members gathered for the services. Several members complained to the Board of Directors. The board meeting in February was very confrontational. Seventy percent of the owners voted in favor of prohibiting the holding of religious services in the auditorium. The Board then voted unanimously to amend the rule governing the use of the auditorium. The new rule provided that 'no religious services or activities of any kind are allowed in the auditorium or any other common elements.' Ps filed suit against Grandview seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to determine whether the rule violated their constitutional rights or was in violation of section 718.123 and whether the rule was arbitrarily and capriciously enacted by the Board. Ps moved for a temporary injunction alleging that Grandview was not only preventing the owners from holding religious services, it was also prohibiting the use of the auditorium for holiday parties, including Christmas and Chanukah, based upon its prohibition against using the common elements 'for religious activities of any kind.' The court granted the motion as to the use of the auditorium for religious activities of any kind. D then amended its rule to limit the prohibition to the holding of religious services in the auditorium. In a permanent injunction hearing, Ps argued that religious services fell into the category of a 'peaceable assembly,' and a categorical ban on the holding of religious services was per se unreasonable. In its final order denying the injunction, the court determined that because no state action was involved, the unit owners' constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion were not implicated by D's rule. The court determined that the rule did not violate section 718.123, as the condominium association had the authority to enact this reasonable restriction on the use of the auditorium. Ps appealed.