HomeMy WebLinkAbout2718 _ ~
.
for 600 condominium units, each consisting of a concrete pad for a
campertype trailer and a patio, with sewer and clectrical facilities
available and with each unit owner owning an undivided 1/600th interest `
in the common e lements and li~nited common elements such as the
utilities, bath houses. recreational facilities, service facilities,
beac;hes, parks, parking areas and the like. A part of the program
for promoting the sale of the units was a plan whereby the developer
would rent the units to the general public when the same were not occupied
by the owner and ~vould remit a portion of the rental to the owner, thereby
helping to pay for the condominium unit. In this connection~ Articie XI
of the declaration of condominium provided in part as follows:
"~o restrictions are placed herein, as far as renting
or selling any condominium unit, provided, however,
that all rentals thereof shall exclusively lie undertaken
by the developer, and for and in consideration of a
schedule or schedules to be promul~ated from time to
time by the develoFer. The developer has undertaken
an advertising program to promote the rental of the
said units both from itself, insofar as it relates to those
units still owned by the developer, and units sold and in
private ownership. "
i
~
~ . tn 1968, the plaintiffs purchased U. K-30, at which rime they
9 received a copy of the declaration of condorntnium. They subsequently
~
~ purchased the adjacent unit, K-31, aware of ~he rental arrangement.
~
i'
~ Thereafter, the plaintiffs occupied K-31 and permitted the condominium
~ developer to rent K-30 to others. pver a period of approximately 2 years,
~
~ this unit was rented on some 36 occasions, most of which were for periods
~
~ of 1 to 3 days. The developer retained 50Jo of the gross rentals and
~
~ remitte.d the remainder to the plaintiffs. Becoming disenct3anted, plain-
~
tiffs initiated this suit seeking to have the rental provision of the declara-
E,,
~ tion of condominium declared void as being in vioiation of the rule against `
:F_:
~x~
~ illegal restraints on alienation. 'This was, in fact, the basis upon which
?
~ the court declared this provision to be void.
s-,;
y:: .
E';~ ~ / ~
` .
F~~X
~
f
- O n 1 ~
$~~1 ~
~