Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0853 { economic benefit of the Developer. This provision of Article X1 constitutes an unreasonable restriction on free competition in the real estate market which is detrimental to the public welfare and obnoxious to public policy. ` The Plaintiff has attempted to enforce Article XI to preclude competing real estate brokers from solicitinq or con- ~ tracting with condominium unit owners to lease their units. ` Under Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium, the Plaintiff is entitled to 50~ of the qross rents collected for renting the condominium units. The evidence shows, however, that competing real estate brokers who have tried to solicit the unit owners for real estate brokerage services, would charge a commis- sion of only 30% of the gross rentals . It is obvious, therefore, that the present 50~ commission is an artificially imposed price for real estate brokerage services which would be substantially lowered should competing brokers be aliowed to rent these units. The enforcement of Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium unnaturally controls the supply and.price of real es~ate brokerage services within a large community potentially consisting of 1,585 families. Furthermore, the enforcement of i this provision of the Declaration of Condominium does and has i ~ a tendency to restrain trade and to stifle competition in real € ~ estate brokerage services. i ~ Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium, in fact, ~ ~ constitutes a form of contract between the individual unit owners and the Plaintiff. This contract in operation, however, restrains ~ other licensed real estate brokers from exercising their lawful x ~ profession, trade or business within a substantial market, to-wit: ~ ~ the 1,585 unit owners within the condominium complex. ~ ~ ~ Article XI of the Declaration of Condominium cannot be enforced in a court of law as it violates public policy. The 3 ~ Court here is not concerned with restrictions on the alienation of property as discussed in Holiday Out in America at St. Lucie, Inc. ~ ~ v. Bowes, 285 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) or whether or nat t~e ~ ~ ~ -9- ~ ~ ~ ~ , : ~ ~ "k ~ gC'G" ~ ?4ir - ~ ~ ~ = _ - .