Article Courtesy of The
Miami Herald
An Opinion By Shari Wald Garrett
Published July 27, 2023
|
A
recent ruling by Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal spotlights a case
that escalated from a minor fence dispute into a major courtroom quarrel with an
appeal and reversal. The end result is prolonged and costly litigation that
illustrates the potential ramifications of discrepancies and confusion in
homeowners associations’ reviews and approvals of owners’ submissions for
planned architectural changes to their properties.
The saga all began when homeowner Craiger Scheuer complained to the board of
directors of the HOA for The Cottages at San Lorenzo, in Bradenton about his
neighbors’ new fence. Neighbors Luis Antonio Beckett-Morales and Sharon
Talamantes-Santiago had submitted plans for their new fence to the association
and received its prior architectural review and approval as required, but
unfortunately there was an issue.
The application included two conflicting plans: one called for a fence that
would obstruct the view from Scheuer’s property of a stormwater retaining pond
directly behind their home but not abutting his, and the other was for a fence
that retained his view. The HOA nevertheless approved the application, but it
importantly provided that the approval was subject to the written condition that
the fence follow all the architectural review committee guidelines for the
specific lot type.
Obstructed views
When Scheuer complained that the fence installed by Morales and Santiago
obstructed his view of the pond, the association ultimately agreed and covered
the cost of modifying the fence. However, the remodeled fence also obstructed
Scheuer’s view, so he sued his neighbors and the association.
In support of his case before the Manatee County Circuit Court, Scheuer
submitted emails from association representatives who agreed that the existing
fence is inconsistent with the contractor’s sketch included with the
application. In fact, a reply from the association directly admitted to his
allegation that the completed fence fails to conform to the approved
application.
Morales and Santiago responded by demonstrating that a fence built consistently
with their contractor’s original sketch in their application would have been in
violation of the community’s architectural guidelines. Instead, the revised and
completed fence is the result of modifications that the association paid for to
address Scheuer’s complaint, and it is in compliance with the governing
architectural guidelines.
After the trial court ruled in favor of Scheuer and ordered that the fence be
modified to comport with the original sketch and with the restrictions in the
community’s guidelines to protect his water view, Morales and Santiago appealed
the decision to Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal.
The appellate panel found that Scheuer had failed to identify a provision of the
community’s governing declaration or architectural guidelines that Morales and
Santiago had breached. The neighbors submitted their application and received
approval from the HOA to install their fence subject to the handwritten
condition that it comply with the guidelines for waterfront lots. The initially
installed fence did not comply with those guidelines, but the modified one does.
While the current completed fence does not comport with the sketch in the
application, the originally proposed fence actually would not have been in
compliance with the guidelines.
Ruling and fallout
The appellate panel unanimously concluded that, in contrast with a prior ruling
cited by the lower court, in this case there is no language in the declaration
or in the guidelines expressing a broad intent to guarantee water views for lots
such as Scheuer’s that do not abut stormwater ponds but are adjacent to those
that do. It also found that requiring Morales and Santiago to build a fence that
exposes more of their property to their neighbors’ view than the declaration and
guidelines require impermissibly infringes on their right to enjoy their lot. It
reversed the injunctive relief ordered by the trial court and remanded the case
back for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
The end result from this case will probably be costly appellate legal bills for
the association and/or Scheuer, with no additional modifications to the
completed fence. An HOA’s architectural review and approval process is designed
to ward against disputes such as this by hashing out all the details for
architectural improvements during its hearings and reviews. This case
illustrates that when conflicting designs are not caught during the
architectural application process and neighbors’ concerns are not fully taken
into account in the design and approval stage, confusion can occur and possibly
lead to potentially costly litigation as well as disharmony between neighbors.
|