Opinion ID: 1687913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Single Family Use of the Condominium

Text: The condominium agreement prohibited use of the condominium apartment for any purpose other than as a single family residence. The agreement, however, failed to define the term single family residence and expressly permitted ownership of an apartment by more than one individual. The district court found that when this undefined single family residence provision was read together with the joint ownership provision, the two sections were inconsistent and inherently ambiguous. As a result, the doubt must be resolved against the person claiming the right to enforce the covenant. Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 885, 106 So. 901, 904 (1925). The district court further noted that even assuming the two brothers and their respective families constitute two separate families, they used the apartment in a single family manner by alternating their visits to Florida. Only one brother and his family actually occupied the apartment at any given time, and this was in fact a single family use. We agree with these conclusions of the district court. In addressing the issue of what constitutes a single family, the district court cited Moore v. City of East Cleveland which held that the right to live together as a family may not be limited to only a few categories of related individuals by a housing ordinance with criminal penalties. For the reasons expressed previously in this opinion, we find Moore not applicable to the instant case.