Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
In those cases where a use restriction is not mandated by the declaration of condominium per se, but is instead created by the board of directors of the condominium association, the rule of reasonableness comes into vogue. The requirement of "reasonableness" in these instances is designed to somewhat fetter the discretion of the board of directors. By imposing such a standard, the board is required to enact rules and make decisions that are reasonably related to the promotion of the health, happiness and peace of mind of the unit owners. In cases where the decision to allow a particular use is within the discretion of the board, the board must allow the use unless the use is demonstrably antagonistic to the legitimate objectives of the condominium association, i. e., the health, happiness and peace of mind of the individual unit owners.
Appellant, Hidden Harbour Estates, a condominium development containing mobile homes situated on lots owned by the individual residents, brought an action for injunctive relief, alleging that appellees, Arthur and Helen Basso who were mobile home owners, were in violation of the use restrictions of the declaration of condominium by drilling an unauthorized well. The trial court denied appellant's request for injunctive relief, and appellant challenged the order.
Under the circumstances, was appellant entitled to injunctive relief?
The court affirmed the denial of appellant’s request for injunctive relief and found that, in order for appellant to justify its denial of appellee's application to drill a well, it was necessary for appellant to be able to demonstrate that its denial was reasonably related to the fulfillment of legitimate objectives that would have promoted the aesthetic appeal of the condominium development. The court held that appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between its denial of appellees' application and the objectives which the denial sought to achieve, and therefore the denial was improper.