Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Soho Realty, LLC v. The Alexander Condominium Association, Inc.

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

October 10, 2019

Soho Realty, LLC, Appellant,
v.
The Alexander Condominium Association, Inc., etc., et al., Appellees.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

          An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 16-20886, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

          Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. and Perry M. Adair, and Lillian M. Farinas-Sabogal, for appellant.

          Boyd Richards Parker & Colonnelli, P.L. and Elaine D. Walter, and Yvette R. Lavelle; Clausen Miller, P.C. and Ramy P. Elmasri (Tampa); Nelles Kostencki and Matthew S. Nelles (Fort Lauderdale), for appellees.

          Before SALTER, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ.

          MILLER, J.

         Appellant, Soho Realty, LLC ("Soho"), the owner of defined commercial units located within the Alexander All Suite Oceanfront Resort (the "Alexander"), challenges a grant of final summary judgment in favor of appellees, the Alexander Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"), Hora Management Program, LLC, and Beach Resort Suites, LLC.[1] In the judgment, the lower tribunal determined that transient guests of the Alexander were not subject to specified registration requirements. For the reasons set forth herein, we discern no error and affirm.

         FACTS AND BACKGROUND

         The material facts are not in dispute. The Alexander is a mixed-use condominium consisting of residential and commercial units. Soho's commercial holdings include a front desk, a gift shop, restaurant spaces, a laundry facility, a freight elevator, banquet halls, office and storage spaces, cabanas, a boat dock, and an engineering department. Soho leases certain of these commercial units, including the front registration desk, to Yahav Enterprises, LLC ("Yahav").

         Although the overwhelming majority of residential units are utilized for the purpose of transient occupancy, the Alexander also houses numerous permanent residents. Rentals of units are arranged either through a hotel rental program, operated by Yahav, or in some other manner outside of the hotel rental program. As owners are authorized to install keypads on the exterior of their units to facilitate keyless access, arranging a rental outside of the hotel program generally obviates any need for guests to register at the front desk.

         Soho filed suit in the lower tribunal seeking a judicial declaration that, as a "suite hotel," the Alexander is compelled by the City of Miami Beach Code (the "City Code") to abide by certain front-desk registration requirements for transient guests. In its pleadings, Soho sought a determination that the failure by the Association to enforce the relevant City Code provision constituted a violation of its Declaration of Condominium (the "Declaration").[2] Soho further offered to register all guests, through Yahav, for an obligatory fee.

         Appellees sought summary judgment, contending the Association was not bound by the hotel suite registration requirement, as identified in the pleadings.[3]During the pendency of litigation, the City amended its Code to expand the front-desk registration requirement. Thereafter, Soho filed a "Second Amended Complaint," designated within as "a supplemental complaint." The material allegations framed by the newly-filed pleading remained consistent; however, Soho referenced the City Code amendment.

         The summary judgment motion was scheduled for hearing more than twenty days after filing. Subsequent to the hearing, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees on two grounds: (1) the Association was not bound to follow the registration requirements; and (2) the failure to adhere to the registration requirement constituted a non-conforming use. The instant appeal ensued.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         "Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (citing Menendez v. Palms W. Condo. Ass'n, 736 So.2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)). Thus, we review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Id.

         LEGAL ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.