2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 20442 · District Court of Appeal of Florida · Nov 28, 2012
Full text
Thomas H. STEVENS and Thomas Waynick v. Mathew N. PEEBLES and Jennifer A. Peebles, Harry Denwood and Laura B. Denwood, Robert P. Mackenzie, Robert Alessi and Diana Alessi, Christopher Ecott, Edward A. Gillen and Michelle M. Gillen, as Trustee of the Gillen Family Trust, John Boals and Karla Boals, James Horn, Federal National Mortgage Assoc., Anne C. Foley, Dennis Porcelli and May Porcelli, Charles Ladd and Debbie Ladd, Mary R. Beckley, Trustee of the Mr. Beckley Trust, Ruth M. Olsen, Trustee of the Ruth M. Olsen Living Revocable Trust, Walter Boehm and R. Ginenne Boehm, U.S. Bank Na Assoc., Kenneth and Donna Teixeira, Craig Swanson, Kenneth F. Maxwell and Carol E. Maxwell, Kathleen R. Centen, as Trustee under Revocable Trust Agreement, William M. Proschel and Dorothy H. Proschel, Wesley L. Rodstrom and Janet S. Rodstrom
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, unit owners in a boating community homeowners’ association, chai221 lenged the alleged improper allocation and assignment of dock space by the association. The facts underlying this case were outlined in Stevens v. Tarpon Bay Moorings Homeowners Ass’n, 15 So.3d 753, 754 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (Stevens I). There, this court reversed a judgment in favor of appellants and ruled that the action against the association must be dismissed for failure to join certain individual unit owners as indispensable parties. Here, after the individual unit owners were joined, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit against them, finding that it was filed after the five-year statute of limitations period for injunctive relief had run. See § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2009). We have considered the arguments presented on appeal and affirm without discussion, except to point out that our earlier decision did not reach the statute of limitations issue as to the individual unit owners as would-be defendants. Although the court in Stevens I noted that “[w]e perceive no practical barrier to joining all the owners if the dock space is to be reallocated,” it was not the intention of the court to pre-deter-mine the validity of any of the individual defendants’ potential legal defenses. 15 So.3d at 755. The court was simply not presented with that question.
Accordingly, the summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants is affirmed.
Affirmed.
POLEN, STEVENSON, JJ., and BONAVITA, AUGUST, Associate Judge, concur.
