## Facts

- Island House was a condominium in Sarasota County, Florida, consisting of 73 units: 38 villas and 35 apartments in high-rise buildings.
- The original declaration assigned each unit an equal undivided interest in the common elements and required each owner to pay an equal fraction of common expenses and receive an equal share of common surplus (1/73 each).
- By 1969, serious roof leaks in the high-rise buildings required urgent repairs, and the association sought to raise $50,000 by assessment.
- Villa owners, who could outvote apartment owners, did not want to pay equal amounts for repairs to apartment roofs; apartment owners resisted paying the entire cost.
- The association adopted an amendment (by more than 51% of unit owners) changing common expenses and common surplus allocations from equal shares to shares based on each unit’s assessed value relative to total assessed value, and levied the $50,000 assessment using that formula.
- The association also adopted an amendment designating certain laundry machines for the exclusive use of apartment owners and charging apartment owners alone for operation and maintenance of those machines.
- Henry and Frances Thiess, apartment owners, refused to pay the increased assessment and challenged both amendments.
- The trial court upheld both amendments and the assessments; the Thiesses appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a condominium declaration may be amended by majority vote to change each unit owner’s fractional share of common expenses and common surplus from equal shares to assessed-value-based shares without the affected owners’ consent under Florida Statute § 711.10.
2. Whether an amendment may shift the full cost of operating and maintaining certain laundry machines to apartment owners alone, removing those costs from general common expenses, without the affected owners’ consent.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment.
- The amendment reallocating common expenses and common surplus based on assessed value was invalid because it altered owners’ property interests in the condominium parcel without their consent, contrary to Florida Statute § 711.10.
- The laundry-machine amendment was also invalid because it effectively altered apartment owners’ share of common expenses without their consent.
- The association could not impose assessments on the Thiesses (or other owners) in amounts exceeding the original equal-share formula.
- The court did not reach procedural challenges to the amendment process because the substantive statutory defect was dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- A unit owner’s undivided interest in the common elements and the corresponding shares of common expenses and common surplus are part of the owner’s condominium parcel.
- Amendments that change those fractional shares constitute changes to property interests, not mere administrative adjustments.
- Under Florida Statute § 711.10, a condominium parcel may not be altered without the affected owner’s consent; majority approval is insufficient for reallocating common expenses/surplus or imposing costs on a subset of owners in a way that changes their shares.

## Conclusion

The court held that the association lacked authority to amend the declaration by majority vote to reallocate common expenses and common surplus based on assessed value or to shift laundry-related costs solely to apartment owners, because both amendments changed protected ownership interests without the affected owners’ consent.


Thiess v. Island House Ass'n, Inc., 311 So. 2d 142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975)