PORT RICHEY - The past year hasn't been good for the Forest Lake Estates Civic Association.

It all started with the association's attempt to oust Steven and Corinna Gourlay from the neighborhood after the couple took in five foster children. That, the association contended in a lawsuit, amounted to a violation of deed restrictions.

The court of public opinion was not sympathetic to the association's position. Then, in addition to losing the case, the neighborhood was sued by the Gourlays in federal court. The Gourlays accused the association of violating fair housing laws by discriminating against foster children. The Florida Attorney General's Office lined up behind the Gourlays.

Last week, the civic association suffered another blow.

In a separate case, a Pasco-Pinellas circuit judge ruled that the association has no authority to enforce deed restrictions in the portion of Forest Lake Estates where the Gourlays live.

In essence, the ruling by Judge Stanley Mills in Forest Lake Estates v. Horner means the association never had the legal authority to go after the Gourlays in the first place.

Yet the judge's ruling points out a larger issue that extends well beyond the boundaries of one section of one development in Port Richey. On a broader scale, the ruling is but one example of a common problem facing many aging deed-restricted developments in Florida.

The case, lawyers say, shows how a seemingly benign paperwork error, made years ago, can render a homeowners association impotent.

The Forest Lake Estates Civic Association sued Clyde and Nicolette Horner last year, alleging the couple violated deed restrictions by operating a doll-selling business out of their home.

Judge Mills' ruling in favor of the Horners turned on a legal technicality.

Forest Lake Estates Unit Four, where the Gourlays and Horners live, was platted separately from other parts of the development. But when the developer, Deeb Construction Co., conveyed the authority to enforce deed restrictions to the civic association, the legal document did not specifically mention Unit Four.

It mentioned only "Forest Lake Estates." And Forest Lake Estates, according to county property records, was platted in seven sections.

Judge Mills found that significant.

"Even if the restrictions in question were intended to apply to Forest Lake Estates Unit Four, the Plaintiff (the civic association) simply has not been assigned the authority to enforce those restrictions as to Forest Lake Estates Unit Four, a separately platted subdivision," the judge wrote.

"While it may well be that the developer intended to assign such authority as to Forest Lake Estates Unit Four," the judge continued, "it does not appear to the court that this result was accomplished."

Civic association attorney Donald Peyton, who drafted the document in question, did not return a call seeking comment for this story.

The Horners prevailed on another point. Even if the association had the power to enforce the covenants, Judge Mills wrote, the Horners' business was not disruptive to the neighborhood. In fact, the judge noted, an association board member, Walter Lucas, also ran a business out of his home. The judge said Lucas' vending business was "much more likely to run afoul of the deed restrictions in question."

Lucas declined to comment.

Paperwork problems have come back to haunt plenty of deed-restricted developments in the Tampa Bay area.

"I probably see three or four of these every year," said Tampa attorney Steven Mezer, who specializes in homeowners association law.

The problem can be traced to the early 1970s, when Florida courts first cleared the way for deed-restricted communities, Mezer said. Developers rushed to meet the demand from consumers eager to live in subdivisions with covenants designed to protect property values and a certain quality of life.

The laws governing deed-restricted communities have come a long way over the past quarter century, said attorney John Renke II, the lawyer for the Horners. In many cases, the original documents establishing authority to enforce deed restrictions and collect dues from homeowners have been weakened by the evolution of the law.

"The law is constantly being revamped," Renke said. "The attorneys who drafted these documents for the developers back then often didn't understand the nuances of this area of the law. It's a very complicated area. If the attorneys weren't careful, that's where we see the problems."

These days, Mezer said, courts are usually unwilling to infer anything from documents in deed-restriction disputes "unless the intent is absolutely clear." Judges typically base their rulings on a strict interpretation of the documents, Mezer said.

As a result, Mezer said, a growing number of homeowners associations have lost the ability to enforce deed restrictions, collect dues and levy assessments.

Renke thinks that could happen throughout the entirety of Forest Lake Estates, not just in Unit Four.

"I think they'll lose on any case they file from now on," Renke said.

For the Gourlays, that's a moot point. Their case never reached the issue of the association's authority to enforce deed restrictions. The association agreed to drop the case after it became clear the law was on the Gourlays' side. The Gourlays' federal lawsuit against the association is set for trial in the fall.

But for Gena Massicotte, the Horner decision was a heart breaker.

Massicotte and her husband, Roger, live in Unit Four of Forest Lake Estates. The civic association sued them in 2001 for working on their son's car in their driveway. They decided to take on the association - without an attorney - and lost.

Gena Massicotte can't help but think that if they had hired an attorney, they would have won on the same grounds as the Horners. There's nothing they can do now, because the Horner decision came after their case was resolved.

Now the Massicottes are stuck with having to pay the association's $4,500 legal bill.

"It's kind of ironic," Gena Massicotte said. "But we can't do anything. I feel very bitter."