In short: The buyers lost. In Rothbort v. CSC Mayfair, condo-hotel buyers said the developer promised units in the hotel rental program would be exempt from shared costs, but the recorded declaration made owners pay 100%. The trial court rejected reformation and unconscionability on summary judgment, and the Third DCA affirmed without opinion in 2014.
The Facts
Michelle Rothbort and other condo-hotel unit owners appealed a Miami-Dade circuit court judgment for CSC Mayfair Land Limited Partnership and other appellees. Because the Third District affirmed without an opinion, what follows is what the record and the arguments showed, as described for the oral argument, not appellate findings.
The buyers said the developer promised that units placed in the hotel rental program would be exempt from certain shared costs. The recorded declaration said otherwise: owners would pay 100% of those costs. A successor ended the rental program and billed the owners.
The owners asked the court to reform the documents on the ground of mutual mistake and argued the cost provisions were unconscionable. The trial court granted summary judgment against them. The issues on appeal included the effect of the contract’s integration (merger) clause and the developer disclosure and 15-day rescission rules of the Condominium Act.
The Decision
The Third District affirmed per curiam without opinion, so the summary judgment against the owners stood and the declaration’s cost provisions remained in force. The court gave no reasons. It may have concluded that the integration clause and the recorded declaration foreclosed reliance on the earlier promises, that the owners had not shown a mutual mistake, or that the statutory disclosure and rescission scheme was their remedy.
A PCA is not precedent. It does not hold that developer sales promises can never be enforced against recorded condominium documents.
The Law
Reformation rewrites a document only when it fails to express what both parties actually agreed, usually because of a mutual mistake, and the party seeking it must prove the true agreement by clear and convincing evidence. A promise one side says it heard, contradicted by a signed contract with an integration clause stating that the writing is the whole deal, is rarely enough. Unconscionability requires both an unfair bargaining process and terms so one-sided they shock the conscience.
The Condominium Act puts its weight on disclosure. Under section 718.503, a developer must deliver the declaration and other documents before closing, and a buyer has a statutory right to cancel within 15 days after signing or receiving the required documents. Owners’ obligations for common expenses flow from the recorded declaration and section 718.115 and section 718.116. The policy is that buyers can read the documents before they are bound, so courts generally enforce them as written.
Current law (2026): Sections 718.115, 718.116 and 718.503 have been amended several times since 2014 (including 2024-2025 condominium reform legislation); the 15-day developer-sale cancellation right in 718.503 remains. Verify subsection specifics before relying on them.
Lessons
- Read the recorded declaration before closing. In a condo-hotel, it, not the sales pitch, decides who pays what.
- If a salesperson promises an exemption, get it written into the contract or declaration.
- Use the 15-day cancellation window to have a lawyer review the documents.
- A rental program can end. Ask what your costs will be if it does.
Source: Rothbort v. CSC Mayfair Land Limited Partnership, No. 3D13-129 — Fla. 3d DCA (January 8, 2014).
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the actual oral argument, posted on the channel. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
Condo-Hotel Buyers Promised No Shared Costs — Reformation? | Rothbort v. CSC Mayfair, 3D13-0129
Go Deeper
- Florida Condo Owners' Rights: Special Assessments, Records, and Disputes With the Association
- Florida's Summary Judgment Rule: How Rule 1.510 Ends Cases Without a Trial
- How Appeals Work in Florida: The 30-Day Deadline, Costs, and What a PCA Means
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a condo developer's sales promise override the declaration in Florida?
Rarely. Courts generally enforce the recorded declaration and a signed contract with an integration clause over earlier oral or marketing promises. In Rothbort v. CSC Mayfair, owners argued they were promised no shared costs; the declaration said they paid 100%, and the Third DCA affirmed summary judgment against them without opinion.
How long do I have to cancel a new condo purchase in Florida?
Under section 718.503, a buyer from a developer generally may cancel within 15 days after signing the contract or receiving the required documents, whichever is later, and also after certain material amendments. The window is short, so review the documents immediately.
What is reformation of a contract?
Reformation is an equitable remedy where a court rewrites a document so it matches what both parties actually agreed. It usually requires proof of a mutual mistake by clear and convincing evidence. One side’s belief about what the deal should have said is generally not enough.
What does a per curiam affirmance (PCA) mean in Florida?
It means the appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment with the single word affirmed and no opinion. The losing side gets no explanation, the ruling below stands, and the decision is not precedent for any legal point. In Rothbort v. CSC Mayfair, the PCA left the trial court’s result in place without endorsing any particular reason for it.
Talk to a Florida condominium and real estate lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida condominium and real estate disputes from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: every Florida statute and court rule is on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
