Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Midsouth Golf, LLC v. Fairfield Harbourside Condominium Ass’n, Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Fairfield Harbour is a property development governed by a set of restrictive covenants known as the Master Declaration. One of the restrictive covenants grants Fairfield Harbour, Inc. (FHI) the right to collect annual fees for recreational amenities. The Master Declaration requires that each owner of property within Fairfield Harbour become a member of the Fairfield Harbour Property Owners Association, Inc. (the Association). FHI maintains the recreational areas while the Association maintains the parks and common areas within Fairfield Harbour. All members of the Association have an easement for the use and enjoyment of the parks and common areas maintained by the Association. Over time, FHI developed timeshare communities (Defendants) within Fairfield Harbour. FHI recorded restrictive covenants for the timeshare communities, including the covenant to pay annual fees for recreational amenities as referenced in the Master Declaration. In 1993, FHI sold its recreational amenities to the Harbour Recreation Club, Inc. (HRC). FHI and HRC added another restrictive covenant that entitles the owner of the recreational amenities to collect amenity fees from the timeshare units at 5.556 times the rate charged to Fairfield Harbour lot owners. In 1998, the amount of amenity fees charged to timeshare units was under dispute. HRC and Defendants entered a settlement agreement that prohibited HRC from charging the timeshare units a higher amenity fee than those charged to individual lot owners. In 1999, HRC sold the recreational amenities to Midsouth Golf, LLC (Plaintiff) pursuant to a purchase agreement. The agreement referenced the Master Declaration and the 1993 restrictive covenants, but not the 1998 settlement agreement. Plaintiff also sells golf and social memberships for access to the recreational amenities to members of the public who do not own property in Fairfield Harbour. Until 2004, Defendants paid the same amenity fees as individual lot owners. But in November 2004, Plaintiff sued, asserting its right to assess amenity fees against Defendants at a rate of 5.556 times the rate charged to individual lot owners. Defendants argued that the covenant to pay an amenity fee found in the Master Declaration was a personal covenant and was not binding on them. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.