Article Courtesy of The
Daily business Review
By Michael Toback
Published January 19, 2019
|
Is
a personal trainer in a fitness center like a call girl sitting at a clubhouse
bar? This comparison was drawn by the trial court in its decision to grant
summary judgment in favor of a homeowner’s association as to whether a personal
trainer is an invitee or a licensee. However, the Fourth District Court of
Appeal reversed the decision, concluding that neither the analogy nor the
analysis was properly applied to the facts of the case.
The Fourth DCA’s recent ruling in Charterhouse Associates v. Valencia Reserve
Homeowners Association brings an added measure of clarity to the proper test for
courts to apply when determining who may be classified as a licensee by
associations.
The residents of a property owned by Charterhouse within the Boynton Beach,
Florida community paid and authorized a personal trainer to lead their workouts
in the community fitness center. The gym is one of the amenities available for
use by owners, family members, guests, invitees and tenants according to
Valencia Reserve’s declaration. When the association later entered into a
contract with a different vendor to be the exclusive provider of personal
training services in the fitness center, it banned the residents’ trainer from
the facility.
In response, Charterhouse filed suit against the association seeking declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and damages for breach of its rights under the
association’s declaration. The association moved for partial summary judgment,
arguing that the personal trainer retained by Charterhouse’s residents was a
licensee who could be excluded under the new rule it had enacted. The trial
court agreed and granted a final partial summary judgment in favor of Valencia
Reserve, concluding: “If [the personal trainer] is getting a dime for training
[the residents], at any time, which you have basically said he is, then he is
carrying on a business … as soon as [the personal trainer] starts getting paid
for his services is the difference between the girlfriend sitting at the
clubhouse bar and the call girl. One is getting paid, they’re a licensee; the
other one is an invitee. Invitees are welcome, businesses are not.”
Charterhouse appealed the decision to the Fourth DCA, and the appellate panel
found that Florida courts originally applied the “economic benefit test,” which
hinges on the question of whether a business relationship exists to determine if
a visitor to a private property may be granted the status of an invitee.
However, over time Florida courts began to use the “invitation test,” which
further distinguishes between a public invitee and a business visitor based on
the nature of a visitor’s activities and their invitation by an owner.
The appellate court concluded that residents using the fitness center with their
guests, regardless if they are providing companionship or workout guidance, are
using the facility for its intended recreational purpose. It found that the
trial court erred in applying the economic benefit test focusing solely on
whether the trainer was being paid by the residents.
“Instead, the status of the personal trainer in this scenario is more akin to
the invitee ‘girlfriend’ at a clubhouse (using the trial court’s analogy),
rather than the uninvited licensee ‘call girl’ soliciting her services to
provide a ‘girlfriend experience’ for paying customers,” reads the appellate
opinion.
The Fourth DCA also cited prior rulings noting that courts which are called upon
to assess the validity of rules enacted by an association board of directors
must first determine whether the board acted within its scope of authority and,
second, whether the rule reflects reasoned or arbitrary and capricious decision
making.
In this case, the association claimed that its personal trainer exclusion rule
was pursuant to the provision in its declaration authorizing the association to
“provide owners with service [and] amenities … which will enhance the quality of
life at Valencia Reserve.” However, the appellate panel found that the rule
directly conflicts with the declaration’s provision granting access to the
fitness center to owners’ invitees, so it must be found to be invalid because it
exceeded the scope of the board’s authority.
The opinion concludes: “The trial court’s errors arose from its failure to apply
the proper test when designating the personal trainer as a licensee. That error
was compounded when the trial court erroneously upheld the validity of the rule
as applied, and failed to consider whether the Association had the authority to
enact the rule at all.”
In light of this ruling, Florida community associations should give careful
consideration together with the help of highly qualified and experienced
association counsel to any proposed rules, including the banning of personal
trainers from their fitness center, which may conflict with the language found
in their declaration.
|