The Circle Villas Condominium Association, Inc., v. The Circle Property Owners' Association, Inc., 957 So.2d 1207 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Facts:

"The Circle" is a planned condominium unit development comprised of several individual associations, which are condominium associations including "The Circle Villas Condominium Association, Inc." (the "Sub-Association"). At all times material to the case, the Sub-Association was subject to Florida's Condominium Act, Chapter 718 of the Florida Statutes. "The Circle Property Owners' Association, Inc.", is a Homeowner's Association (the "Master-Association"), subject to the provisions of Chapter 720 of the Florida Statutes (the "Homeowner Association Act"). The Homeowners' Master-Association serves as a master association to the various sub-associations, including the Condominium Sub-Association. The members of the Sub-Association are also members of the Master-Association. Article III of the Master-Association's Declaration provides that the Master-Association shall own and maintain the common elements. As such, members of the Sub-Association pay maintenance assessments to the Master-Association.

Issues:

The Sub-Association brought a complaint against the Master-Association, "in its name on behalf of its individual homeowners and members concerning matters of common interest to its homeowners and members." The Sub-Association alleged that the Master-Association breached the terms of Article III of its Declaration when it "failed and refused to maintain the common areas/elements and the recreational parcel, and has allowed same to fall into a state of disrepair." The Sub-Association sought damages and an accounting. In response, the Master-Association filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Sub-Association itself was not a member of the Master-Association as defined in Article IX of the Declaration, and therefore did not have standing to bring the action. Article IX of the Declaration sets forth that membership in the Master-Association is an incident of ownership reserved solely for individual unit owners.

Ruling:

The trial court referred the matter to a General Magistrate who heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss. In her report, the Magistrate determined that pursuant to Article IX of the Declaration, only individual owners could file a complaint, and therefore, the Sub-Association lacked standing to bring the action. The Magistrate recommended the complaint be dismissed. The Sub-Association filed exceptions to the Magistrate's report, claiming that the Magistrate failed to apply Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.221, which "expressly grants [the Sub-Association] the authority and standing to bring this action against [the Master-Association]." The Sub-Association asserted that its claims against the Master-Association were based upon the Master-Association's failure to maintain the common recreational facilities, and, as such, the Sub-Association had the standing to bring the action on behalf of its members as a matter of common interest. The trial court entered an order overruling the Sub-Association's exceptions and accepting the Magistrate's report dismissing the action. The Sub-Association appealed the dismissal. The Appellate Court agreed with the Sub-Association, and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Appellate Court rejected the Master-Association's contention that Article IX of the Declaration specifically limits membership to those persons owning a unit within the premises and that the Sub-Association itself does not own any such property interests. The Court reasoned that Article IX did not foreclose the Sub-Association's ability to bring legal action on behalf of its members regarding a matter of common interest under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Rather, Article IX merely defined who was a member of the Master-Association.