Facts
- Scott and Tammy Lyday bought Lot 76 in Unit II of the Myakka Valley Ranches subdivision in 2010.
- Unit II deed restrictions were recorded in 1971; the developer later assigned enforcement rights to the homeowners’ association in 1982.
- The association imposed an assessment on Unit II owners; the Lydays refused to pay, and the association recorded a lien.
- The Lydays sued for declaratory and related relief, alleging Florida’s Marketable Record Titles to Real Property Act (MRTA) extinguished the restrictions as to their lot.
- The association relied on a 2004 recorded notice purporting to preserve the restrictive covenants under MRTA.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the association, ruling MRTA did not extinguish the restrictions, and entered final judgment enforcing the covenants and assessment-related relief.
Issues
- Whether MRTA extinguished the recorded Unit II restrictions as to the Lydays’ lot.
- Whether the association’s claimed interests were saved by MRTA’s statutory exceptions.
- Whether the association’s 2004 notice of preservation validly and timely preserved the restrictions under MRTA, permitting enforcement of assessments.
Decision
- The appellate court reversed the final judgment for the association.
- The court held MRTA extinguished the association’s restrictive covenants as to the Lydays’ property.
- The court rejected the association’s reliance on MRTA exceptions and concluded the 2004 preservation notice did not prevent extinguishment for the Lydays’ lot.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling that the restrictions were extinguished as to Lot 76.
Legal Principles
- MRTA can extinguish recorded restrictive covenants and similar interests after the statutory period unless preserved in strict compliance with chapter 712, Florida Statutes.
- MRTA’s “root of title” framework controls the 30-year analysis; restrictions not properly preserved relative to the affected owner’s root of title are subject to extinguishment.
- Statutory exceptions to extinguishment apply only when the interest fits the specific categories identified by statute; not all covenants are preserved merely because they run with the land.
- A preservation notice must be recorded within the statutory time window and must identify the property and the recorded source of the claimed interest with sufficient specificity to allow a title examiner to determine its nature and scope.
- Once MRTA extinguishes restrictions as to a parcel, an association lacks an enforceable recorded-covenant basis to impose or collect assessments against that parcel.
Conclusion
The court ruled that MRTA extinguished the homeowners’ association restrictions as to the Lydays’ lot and that the association’s preservation efforts did not satisfy MRTA, so the association could not enforce the assessment against the property.