## Facts

- Grandview at Emerald Hills is a 442-unit condominium whose common elements included an auditorium reservable by members.
- A 1982 rule permitted use of the auditorium by various groups, including religious groups, if at least 80% of the group were Grandview residents.
- In January 2001, unit owners reserved the auditorium on Saturday mornings (8:30 a.m. to noon) and held religious services attended by about forty people, though the reservations stated the purpose was a party.
- Resident complaints led to a confrontational board meeting in February 2001 regarding continued religious services in the auditorium.
- The association board cited concerns about regular exclusive use of a limited common element, community conflict, and competition among different religious groups for the space.
- After a vote in which about 70% of unit owners favored a prohibition, the board adopted a rule barring religious services in the auditorium and other common elements.
- Unit owners Herman Neuman and Seymour Okner sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging constitutional violations, violation of Fla. Stat. § 718.123 (peaceable assembly), and arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.
- During the litigation, the association narrowed the rule’s wording to target “religious services” (not all religious “activities”), with the understanding that religiously themed social events (e.g., holiday parties) remained permitted.

## Issues

1. Whether a condominium rule prohibiting the holding of religious services in a condominium auditorium unreasonably restricts unit owners’ right to peaceably assemble under Fla. Stat. § 718.123.
2. Whether adoption or enforcement of the rule constituted state action sufficient to trigger constitutional protections for free exercise, free speech, or assembly.
3. Whether the rule was unreasonable, or arbitrarily and capriciously enacted, as a regulation of common elements.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the condominium association.
- The court held the rule did not violate Fla. Stat. § 718.123 because it was a reasonable regulation of limited common-element use and did not unreasonably restrict peaceable assembly.
- The court held there was no state action in the association’s adoption or enforcement of the rule, so constitutional claims were not implicated.
- The court rejected the argument that the rule was arbitrary or capricious, relying on the board’s stated community-management concerns and the owners’ vote supporting the prohibition.

## Legal Principles

- Condominium associations may regulate use of common elements through duly adopted rules, and courts will invalidate such rules only if they violate constitutional rights, are unreasonable, or are arbitrarily and capriciously enacted.
- Under Fla. Stat. § 718.123, the controlling inquiry is whether a rule unreasonably restricts a unit owner’s right to peaceably assemble; the statute permits reasonable regulations of common-element use.
- Rules adopted and enforced by a private condominium association ordinarily do not constitute state action; absent state action, constitutional protections for speech, religion, and assembly generally do not apply against the association.
- A targeted restriction on holding formal religious services in a shared, limited common area may be upheld as reasonable where alternative forms of assembly remain available and the regulation addresses recurring exclusive use and community conflict.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the condominium association’s prohibition on holding religious services in common areas, concluding the restriction was a reasonable common-element regulation under Fla. Stat. § 718.123, not arbitrary or capricious, and not subject to constitutional challenge because the association’s conduct was private rather than state action.


Neuman v. Grandview at Emerald Hills, Inc., 861 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2003)