## Facts

- Woodside Village is a 288-unit condominium created in 1979 under Florida’s Condominium Act.
- The original declaration permitted leasing for up to one year without prior approval, and longer-term dispositions with board approval.
- In the mid-1990s, unit owners complained that increased tenant occupancy adversely affected property values and community conditions.
- Acting under the declaration’s amendment procedure, the unit owners adopted amendments that tightened leasing controls, including:
  - a cap limiting leasing to nine months in any twelve-month period;
  - a prohibition on leasing during the first twelve months of ownership; and
  - a requirement of prior board approval for leases and renewals.

- Adolph S. Jahren and Gary M. McClernan, unit owners who leased their units, continued leasing in ways inconsistent with the amended declaration after receiving notice.
- The condominium association sued to enforce the amended leasing restrictions.
- The trial court entered summary judgment for the unit owners, concluding the amendments could not be enforced against owners who purchased before their adoption.
- The district court of appeal affirmed, treating the amendments as invalid in their retroactive application.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted conflict review and considered whether the amendments were enforceable against pre-amendment purchasers.

## Issues

1. Whether properly adopted amendments to a condominium declaration may restrict unit leasing and be enforced against owners who purchased before the amendments were adopted.
2. What standard governs judicial review of owner-approved declaration amendments restricting use, occupancy, or transfer, including leasing.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and upheld enforcement of the leasing restrictions.
- The Court held that declaration amendments adopted pursuant to the declaration’s voting procedure and consistent with statute are presumptively valid.
- The Court rejected the view that enforcement against pre-amendment purchasers was impermissibly retroactive or confiscatory where purchasers took title subject to a declared power to amend.
- The Court concluded the unit owners did not show the amendments were arbitrary, contrary to public policy, or violative of a fundamental constitutional right.

## Legal Principles

- Condominium ownership is statutorily regulated and entails acceptance of communal controls that may limit individual property use more than in traditional fee ownership.
- Restrictions contained in a condominium declaration, including properly adopted amendments, are treated as covenants running with the unit and receive strong judicial deference.
- Declaration amendments adopted by the required owner vote are presumed valid and will be upheld unless the challenger proves the restriction is:
  - arbitrary,
  - in violation of public policy, or
  - an infringement of a fundamental constitutional right.

- A purchaser who takes title subject to a declaration that reserves a power to amend is on notice that additional restrictions may later be imposed through the stated amendment process.
- Courts distinguish between (a) owner-approved declaration provisions and (b) board-promulgated rules; the former generally receive greater deference in validity review.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that owner-approved amendments to a condominium declaration may substantially restrict leasing and are enforceable against all unit owners, including those who purchased before the amendments, unless the restrictions are shown to be arbitrary, unlawful, or to infringe a fundamental constitutional right.


Woodside Vill. Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Jahren, 806 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 2002)