La Minnesota Riviera, LLC v. Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.

── La Minnesota Riviera, LLC v. Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________ Case No. 6D2025-0443 Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-1330 _____________________________ LA MINNESOTA RIVIERA, LLC, Appellant, v. RIVIERA GOLF ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. _____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Lauren L. Brodie, Judge. April 17, 2026 NARDELLA, J. This appeal addresses whether land owned by La Minnesota Riviera, LLC (“Riviera”) remains bound by a restriction requiring its use as a golf course. Because the restriction was not properly preserved under Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act (“MRTA”), we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment for Riviera. In 1973, a deed addendum was recorded on the property currently owned by Riviera. The addendum contained a use restriction, requiring the property to be used as a golf course. When the property was sold almost two decades later, in 1990, the deed itself did not mention the use restriction. But, just before the recording of the deed, a partner to the general partnership which owned the property at the time, filed an affidavit averring that he, Myron Gifford, had authority to execute the instruments on behalf of the partnership (“Gifford Affidavit”). Important here, that affidavit incorporated by reference the 1973 deed addendum, which contained the restriction requiring the property to be used as a golf course. Years later Riviera acquired the property unaware of the restriction, only discovering it when a subsequent sale fell through. After the restriction was discovered, Rivera attempted to develop the land but drew opposition from the Homeowner’s Association of the adjoining residential subdivision, Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Riviera HOA”). To block the development, Riviera HOA filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the theory that the use restriction in the 1973 deed addendum was properly preserved via the Gifford Affidavit, and thus such restriction still encumbered the property having never been extinguished under Florida’s Marketable Record Title Act (“MRTA”). The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied Riviera’s motion, granted Riviera HOA’s motion, and entered a declaratory judgment in its favor. 1 1 The trial court dismissed Riviera HOA’s claim for injunctive relief. 2  On appeal Riviera argues that this was error for several reasons, but we reach only one. Because the Gifford Affidavit is not a muniment of title on which said estate is based, it could not, in this case, preserve the use restriction under the plain language of MRTA. “We review de novo the trial court’s order granting summary judgment.” Pial Holdings, LTD v. Riverfront Plaza, LLC, 379 So. 3d 547, 550 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Similarly, “a trial court’s interpretation and application of a statute is reviewed de novo.” Orosco v. Rodriguez, 376 So. 3d 92, 94 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). By way of background, “[t]he purpose of the Marketable Record Title Act was to simplify and facilitate land transactions by letting interested parties rely on the record title.” Sawyer v. Modrall, 286 So. 2d 610, 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). “The idea is to extinguish all claims of a given age (thirty years in the Florida