Case Name: Claude B. NORRIS et al., Appellants, v. EDWIN W. PECK, INC., etc., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-03-26
Citations: 381 So. 2d 353
Docket Number: No. MM-14/T1-15
Parties: Claude B. NORRIS et al., Appellants, v. EDWIN W. PECK, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.
Judges: UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 381
Pages: 353–356

Head Matter:
Claude B. NORRIS et al., Appellants, v. EDWIN W. PECK, INC., etc., et al., Appellees.
No. MM-14/T1-15.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 26, 1980.
Edward S. Jaffry of Horne, Rhodes, Jaf-fry, Horne & Carrouth, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Dean Bunch of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellees.

Opinion:
COBB, Judge.
Appellee/developer constructed a condominium with a restaurant/lounge on the 29th floor. The original declaration of condominium provided that the parking areas were common elements and that an unstated number of parking spaces would be reserved for the use of the 29th floor invitees. Subsequently, the developer entered into subscription agreements with prospective owners which provided that the developer could make changes in the declaration of condominium prior to the closings if the changes did not materially affect rights of the purchasers or the value of the purchasers' units.
Prior to the closings, the developer did record a first amendment to the declaration of condominium which provided that a storage room and 55 designated parking spaces were limited common elements appurtenant to the 29th floor. It also provided a designated parking space as a limited common element for each condominium unit.
After the closings, a minority of the unit owners filed suit to quiet title to the parking areas and storage room, claiming that the first amendment to the declaration of condominium violated their subscription agreements by being material adverse changes. After reviewing extensive evidence, the trial court found that the first amendment carried out the general plan contemplated by all parties, was valid, and denied the relief sought. We affirm.
The trial court also found that the 55 parking spaces that were limited common elements appurtenant to the 29th floor are available for use, and are used, by the unit owners, when not in use by the 29th floor customers, and ordered the continuation of this agreed upon practice. This portion of the final judgment has not been appealed by any party. At oral argument on appeal, counsel for the developer conceded that the developer does not object to such use of the 55 parking spaces. Although such use may contravene the statutory definition of limited common elements, this court should not address portions of orders which have not been raised on appeal and about which the parties are not complaining.
AFFIRMED.
UPCHURCH, J., concurs.
SHARP, J., concurs in part, dissents in part with opinion.