Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Florida

Re: Home owners association rights against home owner in free to work state

Restrictions against commercial vehicles have been upheld in cases like Cottrell v. Miskove, 605 So.2d 572 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1992). In that case the court held that "Restrictions are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity because each property owner has adequate notice of the restrictions and purchases his property knowing of, accepting, and relying upon them. Accordingly, courts will not invalidate restrictions unless they are clearly ambiguous, wholly arbitrary, unreasonable in application, or violative of public policy or a fundamental constitutional right. Constellation Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Harrington, 467 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla.2d DCA 1985). We recognize that covenants restraining the free use of property are to be strictly construed in favor of the grantee and that ambiguity in a restriction must be resolved against persons claiming enforcement. Where, however, the provision governing the dispute sufficiently evidences the intention of the parties, it will be enforced. McKay v. Townson, 528 So.2d 977, 978 (Fla.2d DCA 1988). We acknowledge the principle that restrictions limit the free use of property. Restrictions also protect the interests of all the other property owners who buy in reliance upon them and courts should, whenever possible, uphold these valuable property rights." Both counsel as well as this court were unable to locate any reported decision in which the term "commercial vehicle" was held to be vague, ambiguous, or unclear. The words "commercial" and "vehicle" are well defined terms. Black's Law Dictionary 270 and 1554 (6th ed. 1990). Courts have utilized discoverable dictionary meanings when faced with similar questions. Sterling Village Condominium, Inc. v. Breitenbach, 251 So.2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), cert. denied, 254 So.2d 789 (1971). When the two words "commercial" and "vehicle" are combined, we hold that they do not become vague, ambiguous, or unclear.

Therefore, if I were you I would (1) go to a meeting, (2) bring a court reporter, (3) have a discussion as to why they do not want commercial vehicles just to get their objections on the record, and then (4) Ask your association if they would have any reasonable objection, and if they would find you in non-compliance if you bought a cover for your van and covered it everytime you parked. You should then argue that this should alleviate the basis behind the restrictive covenant forbidding commercial vehicles.

Good luck and let me know how things work out for you,

Randall Gilbert