INDIAN TRAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LETA ROBERTS, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in a homeowners association case, upholding the voiding of an attempted amendment and an order granting the plaintiff access to association records. The court made minor modifications to clarify that prohibitory injunctions need not be temporary and corrected the trial court's erroneous exclusion of a member's vote.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment with two minor corrections: (1) the trial court erred in excluding one owner's vote, though this error did not affect the outcome because the Association's amendment was properly voided on another ground; and (2) superfluous prospective language directing the Association to 'continue to violate' no rights and to 'use best efforts' to maintain accurate records was inappropriate in a prohibitory injunction.
[1] A trial court errs in excluding a property owner's vote from computations when their voting rights have not been suspended by the board.
[2] Superfluous language in a final judgment, such as enjoining future violations or requiring "best efforts" to maintain records, does not affect the outcome of an appeal or…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court of its equity powers.”
Statement from U Shop Rite which the court clarified applies only to mandatory injunctions, not prohibitory ones.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Indian Trail Homeowners Association attempted to amend its bylaws through a vote that excluded one owner's ballot. The trial court voided this ame…
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 Mandatory Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s final judgment and judgment awarding costs and attorneys’ fees, and we approve everything contained therein with two exceptions in the former. First, we conclude the trial court erred in excluding one owner’s vote in its computations, the individual’s voting rights not having been suspended by the board. While this correction eliminates one of the trial court’s reasons for voiding the Association’s attempted amendment, the other— more important — reason recited by the trial court remains viable and dispositive upon that point.
Second, there is superfluous language in two parts of the final judgment that was best omitted; namely, enjoining the Association from: “Continuing to violate plaintiff’s rights of inspection in the future.” The important part of the paragraph is valid — ordering the Association to provide the plaintiff with access at the present time. The other superfluous language is directing the Association to “use its best efforts to maintain accurate records in the future.” Neither of the foregoing affects the outcome of this appeal nor the attorneys’ fees to be awarded.
This court has recognized the difference in prohibitory and mandatory injunctions. In Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we receded en banc — in prohibitory injunctions — from the following earlier language in U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979): “A perpetual injunction is unknown to the law, therefore unenforceable through a judgment of the court and the attempt to impose such a sanction is an abuse by the trial court of its equity powers.” Id. at 1033. We erroneously cited U Shop Rite, a prohibitory injunction case, in Abbey Park Homeowners Ass’n v. Bowen, 508 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), the latter being a mandatory injunction case where we appropriately held that in specific performance situations, a perpetual injunction was inappropriate. We did properly cite Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. Southern Catering Services, Inc., 388 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), as authority for the proposition that the trial court is not a general overseer and correctly said that a party cannot be required to do the impossible.
U Shop Rite, as well as the underlying case which prompted Goodell; namely, Jackson Grain Co. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So. 2d 143 (1942), were prohibitory or restraining type injunctions — as were Goo-dell and the present case, for all intents and purposes.
DOWNEY and GARRETT, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ares v. Cypress Park Garden Homes I Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 696 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…commendation was legally erroneous. The master based his characterization of the requested injunction on Fourth District decisions holding that a perpetual mandatory injunction is inappropriate. Indian Trail Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Roberts, 577 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Abbey Park Homeowners Association v. Bowen, 508 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The master also observed that a trial court is not a general overseer, and that it should not assume an endless supervisory duty, citing Roberts, 51…
-
Corliss A. Rupp, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 963 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…the requirement that the change of circumstances is permanent does not require a showing that the change is forever. That would be an impossible burden because no one can testify to the future; ...”); Indian Trail Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Roberts, 577 So. 2d 998, 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(“... a party cannot be required to do the impossible.”); Abbey Park Homeowners Ass’n. v. Bowen, 508 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)(revers-ing order granting injunction because “Abbey Park does not have the ability to co…
-
Munao v. The Homeowners Ass'n of la Buona Vita Mobile Home Park, Inc., 752 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…reliance on Abbey Park Homeowners Ass’n v. Bowen, 508 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), is misplaced. The essence of the order in this case is to prohibit the appellant from varying the temperature. See Indian Trail Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Roberts, 577 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So. 2d 736 (Fla. [*1273] 4th DCA 1982); Jackson Grain Co. v. Lee, 150 Fla. 232, 7 So. 2d 143 (1942). AFFIRMED. DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Jackson Grain Co. v. LEE, 150 Fla. 232 (Fla. 1942)
- Abbey Park Homeowners Ass'n v. Bowen, 508 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Goodell v. Goodell, 421 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- MJR Minton, LLC v. Long Doggers Eateries, 251 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Fla. JAI Alai, Inc. v. S. Catering Servs., Inc., 388 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard's Paint MFG. Co., Inc., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)