Case Name: KESL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. RACQUET CLUB OF DEER CREEK II CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-02-06
Citations: 574 So. 2d 251
Docket Number: No. 89-2947
Parties: KESL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. RACQUET CLUB OF DEER CREEK II CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 574
Pages: 251–258

Head Matter:
KESL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. RACQUET CLUB OF DEER CREEK II CONDOMINIUM, INC., Appellee.
No. 89-2947.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 6, 1991.
Michael H. Gora of Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, Boca Raton, for appellant.
J. Philip Landsman and Emilie M. Tracy of Platt, Haas &' Landsman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
STONE, Judge.
We reverse a final judgment dismissing appellant's third amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Kesl, Inc. alleges that it is the owner of the Racquet Club of Deer Creek and seeks enforcement of a "Club Membership Agreement" against the appellee condominium association. The complaint alleges that, under the terms of the Agreement and the Declaration of Condominium, the Association is obligated to collect club membership dues from the unit owners. A copy of the recorded Club Membership Agreement and a portion of the Declaration are exhibits to the third amended complaint.
The Agreement specifically provides that it runs with the land as to the units, the association, and the club. The tennis club is immediately adjacent to the condominium property and contains swimming as well as tennis facilities.
The Club Membership Agreement provides that the unit owners are required to be members of the Racquet Club and that the Association will collect the dues and pay them over to Deer Creek Properties, Inc. The agreement obligates the club to provide recreation facilities to the unit owners, so long as it is not terminated. It also provides that in the event of its termination, a designated parcel, which includes six tennis courts and related facilities, will be transferred free and clear to the condominium.
The plaintiff is not the original developer. Deer Creek Properties Inc., a subsidiary of the initial developer, was the original signatory to the membership agreement as the owner of parcel "A" upon which the facility is located. The plaintiff did not allege or attach any specific assignment by the original developer, or its subsidiary. However, a deed of parcel "A" to Kesl, Inc., by an intermediate owner, is attached to the complaint.
The appellant initially sued the association solely in its capacity as a contracting party to the agreement for its refusal to collect, and enforce collection of, club dues. The complaint alleges that the association has collected some dues from unit owners which it failed to pay over or account for. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, an accounting, and damages.
The trial court previously determined, in ruling on an earlier motion to dismiss, that appellant must add the unit owners as indispensable parties. The plaintiff sought, in the third amended complaint, to accomplish this by joining the unit owners as a class, as permitted by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.221, and named the association both in its capacity as a contracting party and as the representative of the unit owners.
There were numerous grounds for dismissal asserted in the motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The final judgment states that the dismissal with prejudice is for failure to state a cause of action for all of the grounds asserted in the motion. Essentially (condensed), these are:
(1) The unit owners may not be joined as a class under rule 1.221;
(2) The plaintiff lacks standing to enforce the Club Membership Agreement without a specific assignment of the developer's contract rights;
(3) The club membership contract is an illegal agreement and unenforceable as a violation of antitrust law;
(4) The agreement is not one recognized under Chapter 718, Florida Statutes;
(5) There is no right to an accounting under these facts;
(6) There is an absence of mutuality of obligation thus making the agreement illusory.
However, we conclude that the complaint on its face does state a cause of action and should be sustained as to each of these attacks.
We recognize that generally the "class" in a class action is a party plaintiff. Nevertheless, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.221 provides:
After control of a condominium association is obtained by unit owners other than the developer, the association may institute, maintain, settle, or appeal actions or hearings in its name on behalf of all unit owners concerning matters of common interest, including, but not limited to, the common elements; the roof and structural components of a building or other improvements; mechanical, electrical, and plumbing elements serving an improvement or a building; representations of the developer pertaining to any existing or proposed commonly used facilities; and protesting ad valorem taxes on commonly used facilities. If the association has the authority to maintain a class action under this section, the association may be joined in an action as representative of that class with reference to litigation and disputes involving the matters for which the association could bring a class action under this section. Nothing herein limits any statutory or common law right of an individual unit owner or class of unit owners to bring any action which may otherwise be available. An action under this rule shall not be subject to the requirements of Rule 1.220. (emphasis added)
We interpret the rule as authorizing an association to be sued as the representative of the condominium unit owners in an action to resolve a controversy of common interest to all units. Recognition of a class of defendants under these circumstances, does not, as urged by appellee, deprive the unit owners of due process rights. Here the subject matter of the suit is an integrated part of the total living package equally shared by all units and the matters of common interest arise out of recorded condominium documents and their exhibits. We also note that no affirmative relief or money judgment is sought against the unit owners individually. Had the parties been reversed, it is unlikely that an association plaintiff would be precluded from acting under rule 1.221 on behalf of all unit owners to enforce their rights under the agreement. Cf. generally The Florida Bar, 353 So.2d 95 (Fla.1977); Avila South Condominium Assoc. Inc. v. Kappa Corp., 347 So.2d 599 (Fla.1977). We have considered The Greens of Inverrary Condominium Association Phase I, Inc. v. Johnson, 445 So.2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), but deem it inapplicable. In that case, the valuation of each unit was a unique and separate matter as to which there was not a shared interest. However, here, all units are included and treated the same.
We reject appellee's contention that appellant lacks standing. Kesl, Inc. claims to be the successor owner of the club property and has accepted its obligation under the terms of the recorded agreement to continue to provide the club facilities to the unit owners. The club is open and operat ing. The complaint is silent as to whether there was any, more specific, assignment of the owner's interest in the agreement. However, this alone is an insufficient basis for a dismissal. The recorded document provides that it is binding on the parties and their successors and that it runs with the land both as to the residential property and the club property. If appellee has affirmative defenses they may, of course, be raised in the answer. We have considered Bessemer v. Gersten, 381 So.2d 1344 (Fla.1980) and construe nothing in that opinion as depriving appellant of the standing to seek enforcement of any of its rights as the owner of the club property. We note that there is no present indication that the purchasers of units were not on notice of the Club Membership Agreement and the Declaration. We also note that appellee has not asserted as a standing issue that the plaintiff has not fully de-raigned its title to the fee.
We also reject the argument that the membership agreement, on its face, violates the condominium act and antitrust statutes. Condominium recreation arrangements are not limited to property covered by a recreation leasehold. Florida Statutes Section 718.114 provides:
An association has the power to enter into agreements, to acquire leaseholds, memberships, and other possessory or use interests in lands or facilities such as country clubs, golf courses, and other recreational facilities. It has this power whether or not the lands or facilities are contiguous to the lands of the condominium, if they are intended to provide enjoyment, recreation, or other use or benefit to the unit owners. All of these leaseholds, memberships, and other possesso-ry or use interests existing or created at the time of recording the declaration must be stated and fully described in the declaration.... The declaration may provide that the rental, membership fees, operations, replacements, and other expenses are common expenses and may impose covenants and restrictions concerning their use and may contain other provisions not inconsistent with this chapter.
Here, the plaintiff alleges that the agreement terms encompass a single leisure living package that is totally integrated with the adjoining condominium units. The units were sold furnished as part of a "key-in-lock" resort. The units and recreational arrangements were marketed and purchased as a total package. Portions of the brochure are attached to the complaint. See also Chatham Condominium Assoc. v. Century Village, Inc., 597 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir.1979).
Additionally, although the association may not be the exclusive user of the recreation facility, that fact alone is not a basis for dismissal of the complaint. Section 718.114 does not preclude a developer from arranging a recreation contract package or plan involving multiple users including other condominium associations,' private memberships, or even permitting public use, where such multiple use is reasonably related to the overall scope of the facilities plan and complies with the provisions of section 718.114. Where such a condominium recreation arrangement meets the standards required by 718.114, we cannot say that it is, on its face, prohibited by Florida's antitrust laws; as patently the legislature intends authorized recreation arrangements, whether involving leases or recorded contracts, to be exempt. We emphasize, however, that we are addressing the complaint only, taking its allegations as true, and that any issues raised by the defendant in a response remain to be resolved.
We recognize that for some reason, unexplained in our record, appellant has failed to attach a copy of paragraph 25 on page 30 of the Declaration of Condominium, that is specifically referred to in its complaint as subjecting the condominium to the Club Membership Agreement. Only selected pages of the Declaration were attached to the complaint. We consider this omission, alone, insufficient to support a dismissal. We note nothing in our record indicating a refusal to attach the copy or any indication that the trial court deemed this omission standing alone as a basis for dismissal with prejudice, particularly as there is no claim of prejudice. Additionally, that provision of the Declaration appears elsewhere in our record making it patent that the provision's existence is not in question.
The complaint states a claim for an accounting as to those dues payments allegedly made by unit owners to the association in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and not remitted. This is an appropriate remedy at law notwithstanding that the parties do not otherwise stand in a fiduciary relationship to each other and are even adverse.
We also do not accept appellee's assertion that the contract on its face lacks mutuality. Although the agreement may afford more extensive power to the club's interest than to the member's, it nevertheless reflects corresponding obligations owed to the members prior to any termination, and it provides for a considerable portion of the parcel "A" property to be transferred to the members in the event of termination. Cf. Bossert v. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Inc., 404 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Therefore, the final judgment of dismissal is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
ANSTEAD, J., concurs.
GUNTHER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.
. We need not address in this opinion what would occur in the event of conflict between the two separate condominiums involved, one of which is not a party to this action.
. That ruling is not before us for review.