HomeMy WebLinkAbout2719 An unlimited restraint on alienation is void. Robinson v.
Randolph, 1885, 2I FIa.629; Davis v. Geyer, 1942, 1S1 F1a.362, 9 So.2d
727. But in this case there is no restraint on alienation. Tlie plaintiffs
are free to convey the fee title to the property at anytime and to anyone
in exactly the same state as they acquireci it. The fact that the property
may be less desirable {and hence less valuable) than ~voulci be the case
if not subject to the rental restrictions (a supposition which the trial
court made but which is not supported by an}~ evidence) sim~iy doe5 ciot
constitute a i•estraint on alienatic,n.
Section 711.08(2}, F.S, expr~~ssly recognizes t}~a: the declara-
tion of condominium ma_y contain ~~rovi~ions relating tv use restrictions
and limitations upon conveyance as ~ire t~e.~anittcd by law ~ilith reference
to i-eaI ~ro~ert}?. ?tie very naturc of the condominium concept of owner-
ship requires a degree of controt in the management to oversee use vf
the common elements and limited common elements, and particularly to
determine that the persons then on the premises and using such are duly
entitled to do so. There was no issue made in this case that the percentage ~
retained bt~ the developer for its services ~~s unreasonable, and the
provision was not unlimited in time because it could be terminated at
any time by a vote of three-fourths of the condominium owners. Article `
i
XI of the Declaration did not violate Section 711.0.8, F.S.
~ The~court also held that the developer, not being registerec~
;
~ as a real estate broker under Chapter 475, F.S. ,~~~oula have no right to
t
t a commission, citing Bradley v. Banks, F1a.App.1972, 260 So.2d 256. -
~
~
' This is correct. in spite of the fact that Section 475.131, F. S. ex°mpts
from the licensing provision of the Chapter the activities of the manager
>
of a condominium in relation to the renting of individuai units within the ~
~
,
~
~ condominium when acting on behalf of an o~vner who has an interest in no
; more th~ one unit and when the rental arrangement is for a period no
~
greater than one year, the developer could not come ~vithin rhe Section
;
' -3-
~
- ~~O~c~
,