Majestic View Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bolotin case brief summary
429 So.2d 438 (1983)
CASE FACTS
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.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
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
.
429 So.2d 438 (1983)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant condominium association
challenged the order of the Circuit Court for Broward County
(Florida), that denied appellant injunctive relief for enforcement of
a condominium provision against appellees condominium owners because
appellant violated U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV, § 1,
and Fla. Constitutional art. I, § 9.CASE FACTS
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.
DISCUSSION
- 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.
CONCLUSION
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
.
No comments:
Post a Comment