429 So.2d 438 (1983)
Appellees condominium owners violated a restriction of appellant condominium association. When appellees refused to comply, despite requests from appellant for compliance, appellant sought injunctive relief. Appellees argued in their counterclaim that appellant arbitrarily enforced the restriction against them. Although the trial court found the rule valid and found against appellees on their counterclaim, judgment was entered in favor of appellees. Appellant challenged and argued that the trial court erred when it ruled that appellant acted arbitrarily in the course of its pre-litigation enforcement efforts.
- The court held that appellant satisfied the requirements for enforcement of restrictive covenants because appellee was on notice of the regulation, received notice from appellant of the violation, and appellees had a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the litigation..
- The court reversed and remanded the judgment because the trial court erroneously expanded the due process requirements of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV, § 1, and Florida Constitutional art. I, § 9, when it refused to enforce the restrictive covenant.
The court reversed and remanded the judgment because appellant condominium association satisfied the procedural due process requirements for enforcement of the restrictive covenant against appellees condominium owners; the trial court erroneously expanded due process requirements to include an adversarial proceeding prior to appellant seeking enforcement of the restrictive covenant.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.