Opinion ID: 1302079
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Use of the Clubhouse.

Text: In its cross-appeal, SVILA complains because the district court awarded Sky View office space in the clubhouse. As mentioned, in its original findings, the district court concluded Sky View was immediately obligated to convey the common areas to SVILA. The court further concluded SVILA's ownership rights would be subject to Sky View's use, as provided in the relevant documents. Following the first ancillary hearing, the district court awarded Sky View use of office space in the clubhouse. In doing so, the court explained: By way of further clarification, the court found under the protective covenants and other relevant documents that even though the petitioner is entitled to ownership and is responsible for maintenance of the clubhouse, the defendant Sky View is entitled as the successor developer to use the common areas, and that explicitly includes the right to occupy a portion of the clubhouse for purposes of sales and further development of the area. Because the documents did not specify what areas of the clubhouse were reserved for this purpose, the court looked to the history concerning the use of the clubhouse. Based on this history, the court set aside for Sky View's exclusive use two front offices. The covenant document language pertaining to the common areas provides the following concerning the use of such areas: Prior to conveyance to the association, use of common areas shall be subject to reasonable rules and regulations promulgated by [the developer]. The use and enjoyment of common areas and improvements thereon, after conveyance to [SVILA] shall be subject to the powers of [SVILA] as set forth in its articles and by-laws and to such rules and regulations governing the use of such property and improvements as may from time to time be adopted by [SVILA]. Provided, however, [the developer] reserves the right to use such common areas pursuant to said agreement between it and [SVILA]. (Emphasis added.) The italicized words clearly reserve to the developer the right to use the common areas. Sky View also has that right as Patten's successor. Although the documents do not specify how and to what extent the developer can use the clubhouse, we think the district court acted within the boundaries of its equity jurisdiction in making the office space award. See Farmers Sav. Bank v. Gerhart, 372 N.W.2d 238, 245 (Iowa 1985) (Equity jurisdiction allows a court the necessary flexibility to determine the equities between the parties.). We find that there was an adequate basis in the record for fashioning this remedy. Historically, Patten had used the clubhouse as a base of operations for its sales effort. At the time Patten sold its interest in the development to Sky View, the development consisted of over 600 platted and developed lots and approximately 160 acres of undeveloped land. We think it would be to all the parties' benefit to have a completed development. Without the clubhouse as a base of operations, there is a risk that Sky View might not be able to, or even want to, complete the development as originally contemplated.