Quick Answer
In Woodside Village Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Jahren, 806 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2002), the Florida Supreme Court held that a leasing restriction adopted by a two-thirds owner vote bound owners who had bought their units before the amendment. The declaration said it could be amended and that owners were governed by it "as they may be amended from time to time," and the Condominium Act then contained no rule against such an amendment.
The rule has since been changed by statute. Section 718.110(13) now says an amendment restricting or altering rentals "applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment." The case is still cited for what it says about declarations and amendments, but it no longer controls rental amendments.
At a Glance
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case | Woodside Village Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adolph S. Jahren and Gary M. McClernan, No. SC00-1030 |
| Citation | 806 So.2d 452 (Fla. 2002) (the reporter cite appears in a later Florida Supreme Court opinion, Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass'n, which we read) |
| Court and date | Florida Supreme Court, January 3, 2002; opinion by Justice Anstead; Justice Quince concurred specially |
| Below | Second District, Woodside Village Condominium Ass'n v. Jahren, 754 So.2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), quashed |
| Statute then | Fla. Stat. 718.110 (2000) |
| Current statute | Fla. Stat. 718.110(13), read in the 2026 edition; the year it was added was not verified |
The Dispute
Woodside Village is a 288-unit condominium in Clearwater established in 1979. Its original declaration allowed leasing without board approval for terms of one year or less, and required board approval for longer terms. A 1995 amendment required board approval of all leases and renewals.
In 1997 some owners worried that units were becoming non-owner occupied, hurting quality of life and market value. In March 1997 the owners amended section 10.3 so that no unit could be rented for more than a total of nine months in any twelve-month period, and no owner could lease during the first twelve months of ownership. The amendments passed by at least the two-thirds vote the declaration required.
The next year the association told Adolph Jahren and Gary McClernan that two of their units violated the nine-month limit. Jahren had owned in the community since 1979 and owned four units bought before the amendment; McClernan had owned two units since 1996. Neither lived in the units. The association sued to enforce. The owners argued the restriction was unreasonable and arbitrary, and that it took lawful uses that existed when they bought.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the owners, reasoning the restriction created more than one class of ownership because it could not be applied retroactively to earlier buyers. The Second District affirmed, and the association took the case to the Supreme Court.
What the Court Held
Declaration amendments bind earlier buyers
The court noted that some courts call the declaration the condominium's "constitution," and said that restrictions in a declaration carry "a very strong presumption of validity." It pointed out that section 718.110(1)(a) (2000) gave "broad authority for amending a declaration." Section 718.110(4) and (8) required all-owner consent only for certain matters (such as unit size, share of common expenses, and timeshare estates), and those were not at issue.
The owners had bought subject to a declaration that "expressly provides that it can be amended and sets forth the procedure." Section 13 said each owner is governed by the declaration and documents "as they may be amended from time to time," and the legal descriptions of the units referred to "amendments thereto." The court concluded the owners "were on notice" that their ownership "was subject to change through the amendment process, and that they would be bound by properly adopted amendments." It approved Seagate Condominium Ass'n v. Duffy (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) and Flagler Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Crestview Towers Condominium Ass'n (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) and noted that most courts elsewhere have reached the same result.
No public policy or constitutional bar shown
The court found the owners had not shown the restriction "violates public policy or respondents' constitutional rights, at least as asserted herein." It said the amendment was aimed at promoting owner occupancy, a goal "consistent with the concept of condominium living," and that it was not arbitrary even if "a different restriction could have been adopted."
The "Abilities Amendment"
A later amendment exempted six units bought by a nonprofit that housed disabled residents, as part of settling a federal fair housing suit. The lower courts had said that created two classes of owners. The Supreme Court disagreed: the distinction was "not arbitrary and discriminatory" because it was tied to providing reasonable accommodations under federal law and section 760.23, Florida Statutes.
Legislature's role
The court acknowledged owners' concerns about investors losing leasing rights without their consent, but said such limits are "better addressed by the Legislature." It quashed the Second District's decision. Justice Quince concurred and urged the Legislature to consider limits on altering existing owners' rights.
Why It Matters for Associations
- Rental amendments now work differently. Our reading of section 718.110(13): a rental restriction adopted today applies to owners who consent and to later buyers, not to existing owners who did not consent. Woodside's result on earlier buyers is not the current rule for rentals.
- The broader point survives. The case describes a declaration as a document owners buy into knowing it can be amended by the stated vote. For other kinds of amendments, a court will still look at the declaration's amendment clause, the statute and any limits in section 718.110.
- Look for the amendment vote. The restriction was valid because it was adopted by the vote the declaration required. Counsel should confirm the vote, notice and recording steps in your documents and in section 718.110.
- Do not read it as HOA law. The case concerns a condominium and Chapter 718. For an HOA, check Chapter 720 and your covenants.
- Fair housing still applies. The decision shows an accommodation for disabled residents was treated as a lawful distinction, not an arbitrary one.
Related Florida Law
- Kaufman v. Shere (1977): amendments clause
- Avila v. Biscayne 21 (3d DCA 2025): termination vote and voting rights
- Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass'n (2011): retroactivity
- Chapter 718: the Condominium Act
- Florida HOA laws complete guide
Board Checklist
- Read the amendment clause in the declaration and note the vote, notice and recording steps.
- Before proposing a rental-term or rental-cap amendment, ask counsel how section 718.110(13) affects who is bound.
- Keep a clear record of the vote and the certificate of amendment (section 718.110(2) and (3) address certificates and recording).
- Check whether any amendment touches the all-owner matters in section 718.110(4) or (8).
- Consider fair housing accommodation requests separately from rental caps.
- Tell owners that earlier cases and the current statute may give different answers.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Woodside Village v. Jahren decide?
That a leasing restriction adopted by the vote the declaration required bound owners who bought before the amendment, where the declaration provided for amendment and no statute barred it.
Is Woodside still good law on rental restrictions?
On rental amendments, the statute changed the result. Section 718.110(13) says rental amendments apply only to consenting owners and later buyers. The case has not been overruled by a court as far as we know, but we did not research later case law.
When was section 718.110(13) added?
We read the current text and its history line, but could not tie the subsection to a specific year, so we do not state one.
What vote did Woodside's declaration require?
Two-thirds of the owners, and the amendment passed by at least that.
Did the court say rental restrictions are always valid?
No. It said the owners failed to show a public policy or constitutional violation as asserted, and that no provision of the Act then barred such an amendment.
Does the case apply to HOAs?
It concerned a condominium under Chapter 718. HOAs should check Chapter 720 and their own covenants.
Where This Comes From
We read the full text of the Florida Supreme Court's opinion in No. SC00-1030 (January 3, 2002) and the 2026 text of section 718.110 on the Legislature's site. The reporter citation 806 So.2d 452 comes from its citation in the Supreme Court's later opinion in Cohn v. Grand Condominium Ass'n. We did not research later case history. The opinion is at FindLaw.
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