Quick Answer
Kaufman v. Shere, 347 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), is the origin of what Florida lawyers call "Kaufman language." The Third District held that a condominium declaration saying the Condominium Act "as presently existing, or as it may be amended from time to time" is adopted "by express reference" brought in a later statutory change automatically.
The court found "no ambiguity" in the words "as it may be amended from time to time." Later cases, including a 2025 decision on this site, still ask whether a declaration has that kind of language when owners argue a new statute applies to an older community.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Sam Kaufman et al. v. Ralph H. Shere and Inez Shere, No. 76-1429 |
| Citation | 347 So.2d 627 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) |
| Court and date | Florida Third District Court of Appeal, May 3, 1977; rehearing denied July 27, 1977; opinion by Judge Nathan; Judges Pearson and Barkdull on the panel |
| Posture | Interlocutory appeal and cross appeal from a partial summary judgment in a class action |
| Statute at issue | Former Fla. Stat. 711.236 (Chapter 75-61), which declared recreation lease escalation clauses void as against public policy |
| Outcome | Affirmed |
| Later history | Not checked (a secondary note mentioned a certiorari denial; we could not verify it, so we do not state it) |
The Dispute
The plaintiffs were unit owners in Fifth Moorings Condominium and the condominium association. The defendants, Ralph and Inez Shere, were officers and directors of the corporation that developed the condominium and were also the lessors of recreational facilities serving the whole Moorings complex, which includes seven other condominiums. Unit owners took on the recreation lease as a mandatory condition of buying.
The lease had a rent adjustment, or "escalation," clause tied to the Consumer Price Index. In May 1974 the lessors demanded an increase under it. The owners sued on July 1, 1975, seeking declaratory relief under section 711.236 of the Condominium Act, which became law on June 5, 1975 and declared such escalation clauses void and unenforceable.
The trial judge allowed the May 21, 1974 increase but barred any further escalations after June 4, 1975. He reasoned that the legislature made the statute prospective only, and that the declaration provided for adopting future legislative acts as amendments. The owners appealed the upholding of the 1974 increase. The lessors cross appealed, claiming the statute was unconstitutional and that the declaration should not be read to incorporate it.
What the Court Held
Retroactivity was already decided
On the owners' request to apply the statute retroactively, the court said the Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Fleeman v. Case, 342 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1977), was "completely dispositive": section 711.236 does not apply to contracts that predate its enactment. So the 1974 increase stood.
The declaration adopted later amendments
The remaining question was whether the Fifth Moorings declaration brought in the statute prospectively. The key clause read: "Except where variances permitted by law appear in this Declaration or in the annexed By-Laws or in the annexed Charter . . . or in lawful amendments thereto, the provisions of the Condominium Act as presently existing, or as it may be amended from time to time, including the definitions therein contained, are adopted and included herein by express reference."
The lessors argued the clause applied only where the declaration conflicted with the Act at the time it was filed. The court was not persuaded. It said the clause "unequivocally states that provisions of the Condominium Act are adopted 'as it may be amended from time to time,'" that it saw "no ambiguity," and that it was "the express intention of all parties concerned that the provisions of the Condominium Act were to become a part of the controlling document of Fifth Moorings whenever they were enacted."
It added that even if the clause were ambiguous, it would be construed against the developer-lessors as authors of the declaration. The court held that section 711.236 "was incorporated into the Fifth Moorings Declaration of Condominium by virtue of the express wording of the Declaration itself."
A footnote on limits
A footnote says provisions would be incorporated "only to the extent that they were valid," so section 711.236 "could only be adopted prospectively." The court did not decide the lessors' constitutional challenge to the statute.
Why It Matters for Associations
- The words of the declaration decide. Other cases treat Kaufman as the starting point: a declaration that adopts the Act "as amended from time to time" can pick up later statutory changes. One Third District decision (Dimitri v. Commercial Center of Miami Master Ass'n, 2018) cites Kaufman for the point that later amendments may change rights under an existing declaration "if the declaration specifically incorporates these amendments."
- A declaration without that language may be treated differently. In Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass'n (Fla. 2011), the declaration adopted the Act as of its recording date and had no "as amended from time to time" language, and a retroactive statute could not impair it. See our Cohn page.
- A bare recital may not be enough. In Avila v. Biscayne 21 (3d DCA 2025), the court found only a recital that the property was submitted "pursuant to" the Act "as amended" and said that was "a mere recital." See our Avila page.
- Our reading: Kaufman does not make every new statute apply to every old condominium. It turns on the clause, and a statute's own retroactivity terms and constitutional limits still matter.
- This was a condominium and a recreation lease case. We do not read it as deciding how HOA covenants incorporate Chapter 720 changes.
Related Florida Law
- Avila v. Biscayne 21 (3d DCA 2025)
- Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass'n (Fla. 2011)
- De Soleil South Beach (3d DCA 2021)
- Woodside Village v. Jahren (Fla. 2002)
- Chapter 718: the Condominium Act
- Florida HOA laws complete guide
Board Checklist
- Search the declaration, bylaws and articles for "as amended," "as it may be amended from time to time" and similar phrases, and note where each sits.
- Note whether the clause appears in the submission paragraph only, or in a general compliance or incorporation clause.
- Before relying on a new statute for a vote or rule change, ask counsel whether your documents incorporate later changes.
- Check the new statute's own effective-date and retroactivity wording.
- Keep the recording date of the original declaration, which later cases treat as important.
- Tell owners the answer can differ between communities because it depends on each declaration's words.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Kaufman language?
It is a term used in later cases for declaration wording that adopts the Condominium Act as it "may be amended from time to time," named after this 1977 case.
What exactly did Kaufman v. Shere decide?
That a declaration with that wording incorporated a later statute (former section 711.236) prospectively, so recreation lease escalation clauses could not be enforced after the statute's effective date.
Did the court apply the statute retroactively?
No. Following Fleeman v. Case, the court held the statute did not reach contracts that predated it, so the 1974 increase was allowed.
Does Kaufman apply to HOAs?
The case concerned a condominium under the Condominium Act. We cannot say how it applies to HOA covenants without counsel review.
Is Kaufman still cited?
Yes. We read later opinions that cite it, including decisions from 2018 and 2025.
Is the reporter citation confirmed?
Yes. The opinion text we read is headed 347 So.2d 627 (1977).
Where This Comes From
We read the full text of the Third District's opinion in No. 76-1429 (May 3, 1977), and the later opinions in Dimitri v. Commercial Center of Miami Master Ass'n (2018), Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass'n (2011) and Avila v. Biscayne 21 (2025) to see how it is used. We did not check Kaufman's subsequent history. The opinion is at CourtListener.
How APM Helps
Association Property Managers provides remote HOA and condo management for associations in Florida, starting at a flat $99/month per community with no per-door fees or long-term contracts. See remote management in Florida, browse every Florida state-law guide, or request a free proposal, delivered within three business days. Laws and licensing rules differ by state, and we confirm the requirements for Florida when we build your proposal.
Legal disclaimer: This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws change and associations differ. Confirm the current statute text and how it applies to your governing documents with a licensed Florida attorney before acting.
Ready to work with Association Property Managers?
Get a free, itemized proposal for your community — delivered within 3 business days.
Request a Free Proposal