## Facts

- A developer built and sold homes in a Florida residential subdivision and constructed related subdivision infrastructure, including private roads, drainage systems, retention ponds, and underground piping.
- Control of the subdivision later transferred to the homeowners association (HOA).
- After transfer, heavy rainfall allegedly caused flooding, erosion, and roadway damage throughout the neighborhood.
- The HOA’s investigation attributed the problems to alleged design and structural defects in the drainage system and other infrastructure.
- The HOA sued the developer for breach of the common law implied warranties of fitness and merchantability, alleging the infrastructure defects impaired the habitability of the homes by preventing safe access and adequate drainage.
- The developer sought indemnity from the infrastructure contractor as a third-party defendant.
- While the case was pending, Florida enacted § 553.835, which limited implied warranties and purported to exclude certain common elements and “offsite improvements,” and included a retroactivity clause.

## Issues

1. Whether the common law implied warranties of fitness and merchantability for new homes extend to subdivision infrastructure and common-area improvements that provide essential services for residential habitability (e.g., private roads, drainage systems, retention ponds).
2. Whether § 553.835 may be applied retroactively to bar or reduce an already-accrued common law implied-warranty claim consistent with due process and vested-rights limits.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court held that implied warranties of fitness and merchantability extend to subdivision infrastructure improvements that provide essential services for the habitability of residences, including private roads, drainage systems, and retention ponds.
- The Court held § 553.835 could not be applied retroactively to extinguish or substantially impair the HOA’s already-accrued cause of action because accrued causes of action are vested rights protected by due process.
- The Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling for the HOA and disapproved a contrary district court decision to the extent inconsistent with this holding.

## Legal Principles

- In sales of new homes by a developer/builder, Florida common law implied warranties of fitness and merchantability reach beyond the dwelling’s physical structure to improvements that provide essential services necessary for habitability.
- The warranty inquiry is functional: whether the improvement is necessary for safe, habitable residential use (e.g., drainage and access), not whether it is physically attached to the home.
- The Legislature may alter substantive implied-warranty law prospectively, but may not retroactively abolish or substantially impair an accrued cause of action without violating due process protections for vested rights.

## Conclusion

Florida’s implied warranties protecting purchasers of new homes cover subdivision infrastructure that supplies essential habitability services, and a later-enacted statute narrowing those warranties cannot be applied retroactively to eliminate or materially limit claims that accrued before the statute’s effective date.


Maronda Homes, Inc. of Fla. v. Lakeview Reserve Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 127 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 2013)