Case Name: TURNBERRY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Turnberry Isle South Condominium Assn., Inc., Joint Council of Aventura, Inc., Biscaya Condominium Assn., Inc., Bonavista Condominium Assn., Inc., Bravura Condominium Assn., Inc., Coronado Condominium Assn., Inc., El Dorado Condominium Assn., Inc., Bonavida Condominium Assn., Inc., Ensenada Condominium Assn., Inc., and Turnberry Isle Condominium Assn., Inc., Appellants, v. VILLA DORADA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-12-16
Citations: 498 So. 2d 1047
Docket Number: No. 86-610
Parties: TURNBERRY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Turnberry Isle South Condominium Assn., Inc., Joint Council of Aventura, Inc., Biscaya Condominium Assn., Inc., Bonavista Condominium Assn., Inc., Bravura Condominium Assn., Inc., Coronado Condominium Assn., Inc., El Dorado Condominium Assn., Inc., Bonavida Condominium Assn., Inc., Ensenada Condominium Assn., Inc., and Turnberry Isle Condominium Assn., Inc., Appellants, v. VILLA DORADA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 498
Pages: 1047–1048

Head Matter:
TURNBERRY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Turnberry Isle South Condominium Assn., Inc., Joint Council of Aventura, Inc., Biscaya Condominium Assn., Inc., Bonavista Condominium Assn., Inc., Bravura Condominium Assn., Inc., Coronado Condominium Assn., Inc., El Dorado Condominium Assn., Inc., Bonavida Condominium Assn., Inc., Ensenada Condominium Assn., Inc., and Turnberry Isle Condominium Assn., Inc., Appellants, v. VILLA DORADA CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., Appellee.
No. 86-610.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 16, 1986.
Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin and Joel S. Perwin, Miami, for appellants.
Joseph S. Paglino, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Until such time as the county makes a charge to pay the cost of maintaining the street lights and landscaping, no recovery may be assessed against one of several condominiums within a condominium development pursuant to the Declaration of Condominiums.
The trial court so held and we agree. Hazen v. Cobb, 96 Fla. 151, 117 So. 853 (1928); Harding Realty, Inc., v. Turnberry Towers Corporation, 436 So.2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Hermanowski v. Naranja Lakes Condominium No. Five, Inc., 421 So.2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We also find that the trial court was correct in denying any recovery against condominiums within the development that have not contracted for any such services. Blake v. Munce, 426 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Mann v. Thompson, 100 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Therefore the summary judgment under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. Article XXV of the Declaration of Condominiums provides as follows:
"Dade County, Florida, may require that the persons benefitting from the use of dedicated roads in Aventura be required to pay the cost of maintaining the street lighting and landscaping thereof. The portion of the expense attributable to the Condominium is hereby declared a common expense, except to the extent that the cost is collected from individual unit owners by Dade County, Florida, by the exercise of its taxing powers. If the cost of maintaining said street lighting and landscaping requires an allocation between and among the Condominium and other properties in the Aventura Project which benefit from said improvements, then said allocation shall be made at the sole determination of the Developer, who shall make such allocation on a fair and equitable basis."