The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0852 own auard and has developed a system by itself to register guests, renters and third parties, and the Association can adequately con- . , trol and police the condominium with the Association's own employees. ~ Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium was entered ~ into by the Oeveloper on the one hand in his capacity as an owner, and on the other hand by the Association, which at that time was under the control of the Developer. Essentially, one party pre- i pared and approved Article XI and this was not an agreement which was reached between two parties who had adverse interests. The ! r Courts of this state have long reserved the right to refuse to _ enforce unconscionable contracts. See general rule in Peacock Hotel v. Shipman, 138 So., 44 (1931); Halstead v. Florence Citrus Growers' Ass'n, 139 So., 132 (1932); Cf. Stewart v. Stearns & Culver Lumber Co., 48 So., 19 (1908). While it is true that all~owners in the condominium had notice of Article XI because the Declaration was recorded and thus had constructive notice, the president of the ; Developer admitted that this was a non-negotiable item when the lots were sold, and the owners could "take it or leave it". Judqe Hubbart, in his dissentinq opinion in Point East ~ne ' Condominium v. Point East, etc., 348 So.2d, 32 (3rd DCA 1977), stated ~ ~ . ' that: i ~ " The economic leverage which condominium # developers have in the sale of condominium € units over individual purchasers of such ~ units has often been judicially noted. Avila ~ South Condominium Ass'n v. Kappa Corp., 347 ~ So.2d 599 Fla. Case No. 48,753, opinion ~ filed March 31, 1977) (England, J., concurrinq); ~ Point East Management Corp. v. Point East One " ~ Condominium Corp., 282 So.2d 628 Fla. 1973 ~ Ervin; J., dissenting); Fountain~iew Ass n ~ v. Be11, 214 So.2d 609 (F1a.1968 Ervin, J. ~ dissenting). Condominium developers sell housing ~ units with unique consumer appeal to an ever ~ expanding population in Florida who are in need ~ of reasonable housing. As such, the developers . ~ occupy a unique economic position in this seller's market which they should not be able to misuse by conditioning the sale of condominium units on the = purchaser's agreement to become obligated on another contract, such as a ninety-nine year recreational lease. Such action constitutes an g unreasonable restriction on free competition in the recreational lease market which is detrimental ~ to the public welfare and obnoxious to public - policy." ~ " ; ~ In this case, the 99 year exclusive right to rent is not ! ~ an integral part of this condominium. In fact, there is no neces- ~ ~ ~ sity for this exclusive right to rent other than for the sole s -8- GQ u~ ~ 9CGr c~IJJ ~;4i~E , ~ _ . . _