Case Name: RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellant, v. ESCONDIDO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-11-18
Citations: 645 So. 2d 149
Docket Number: No. 93-459
Parties: RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellant, v. ESCONDIDO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellee.
Judges: GRIFFIN, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 645
Pages: 149–151

Head Matter:
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF AMERICA, et al., Appellant, v. ESCONDIDO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, et al., Appellee.
No. 93-459.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 18, 1994.
Albert R. Cook and John C. Winfree of Robison, Owen & Cook, P.A., Casselberry, for appellant.
Janet L. Brown of Boehm, Brown, Rigdon, Seacrest & Fischer, P.A., Orlando, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
Residential Communities of America ("RCA") appeals the entry of an order, in favor of Escondido Community Association ("ECA"), denying its request for damages and attorney's fees. We affirm.
This appearance is the second for this case before this court. Previously, RCA appealed ECA's passing and recording of the fifth amendment to the declaration of condominium which prevented the sale of any condominium to a person unless an occupant of the condominium was 55 years of age or older. This amendment was prospective only but it would have applied to the future development of two undeveloped parcels owned by RCA. This amendment was passed without the approval of the developer, RCA. We reversed, ruling that RCA's approval was necessary. Residential Communities of America v. Escondido Community Ass'n, 603 So.2d 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Once the case was returned to the lower court, ECA passed and recorded the seventh amendment to the declaration of condominium to eliminate the fifth amendment. RCA then sought attorney's fees and damages in the lower court, asserting that the fifth amendment of ECA amounted to a slander of title on the property. Glusman v. Lieberman, 285 So.2d 29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973) (attorney's fees are recoverable as expense of litigation to remove the cloud cast upon a title in a slander of title action). In order to prevail, however, RCA had to prove there was a slander of title by ECA.
To establish the elements of slander of title, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has communicated to a third party a false statement disparaging title which has caused the plaintiff actual damage. Gates v. Utsey, 177 So.2d 486 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). If a defendant establishes a defense of good faith, or other privilege, however, a plaintiff must prove actual malice. Allington Towers Condominium North, Inc. v. Allington Towers North, Inc., 415 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). In the instant ease, ECA had a good faith belief, albeit mistaken, that they could enact the fifth amendment without consulting RCA. Moreover, the fifth amendment was neither a false nor malicious statement; it was simply an amendment that did not apply to the RCA parcels, as this court determined. Residential, 603 So.2d at 124-25. Therefore, there was no slander of title. Even if there was a slander of title, RCA was not able to prove that it was damaged by the fifth amendment. RCA is not entitled to attorney's fees. Cf. Atkinson v. Fundaro, 400 So.2d 1324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (attorney's fees can be recovered in a slander of title action even if there are no damages, but the moving party must prove there was a slander of title).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, J., concurs and concurs specially, with opinion.
HARRIS, C.J., dissents, with opinion.