STANLEY ZESKIND AND SHIRLEY ZESKIND, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOCKEY CLUB CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, UNIT NO. II, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's judgment granting an injunction against keeping a pet and denying a counterclaim was supported by substantial evidence and was correct.
Condominium owners appealed an adverse final judgment that granted an injunction against keeping a pet in violation of the association's rules and den…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Condominium Association Rules cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stanley and Shirley Zeskind [Zeskinds], condominium unit owners, appeal an adverse final judgment entered in favor of Jockey Club Condominium Apartments, Unit No. II, Inc., [Jockey Club], a condominium association, after a non-jury trial be low. In the final judgment, the Jockey Club secured an injunction which restrains the Zeskinds from keeping a pet in their condominium unit in violation of the no-pet rule of the Declaration of Condominium; the final judgment also denied a six-count counterclaim filed by the Zeskinds in the cause.
The Zeskinds assert as error on appeal the grant of the above injunction, the denial of a portion of their counterclaim and the award of attorney’s fees. We reject these contentions as no error has been demonstrated, in our view, sufficient to upset the judgment appealed from. We reach this result for two reasons.
First, both the injunction and the award of attorney’s fees are based on substantial, competent evidence adduced below which we have no authority to disturb on appeal. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So. 2d 766, 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Second, the denial of the portion of the counterclaim relating to common elements within the condominium was entirely correct because, as the trial court found, the action complained of was de minimis in nature and was approved by the Jockey Club’s Board of Directors in compliance with the Declaration of Condominium. See Juno By the Sea North Condominium Association v. Manfredonia, 397 So. 2d 297, 301-05 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 402 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1981). The final judgment under review is, in all respects, affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Elec. Co. & Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Chuly Int'l, LLC, 118 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…nishment of the sale proceeds in order to secure its judgment debt, in the event a judgment is rendered in GE’s favor at the conclusion of GE’s fraudulent transfer claim against Chuly. See Zeskind v. Jockey Club Condo. Apartments, Unit No. II, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding injunction was based on substantial, competent evidence adduced below). We reverse the trial court’s order denying the verified motion and remand with directions to authorize the issuance of a prejudgment writ of at…
-
Kendall Square v. Mears, 622 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…PER CURIAM. The trial court’s ruling is supported by substantial, competent evidence. See Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA1987); Zeskind v. Jockey Club Condominium Apartments, Unit No. II, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 479 So. 2d 119 (Fla.1985). Accordingly, we affirm.…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Oaklander v. Jules Oaklander, 351 So. 2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Juno by the Sea N. Condo. Ass'n (the Towers), Inc. v. Seraphin Manfredonia, 397 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)