POND APPLE PLACE III CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JOY RUSSO AND VITO SANTANGELO, INDIVIDUALS, APPELLEES
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 Pond Apple Place III Condominium Association sought to enforce a restrictive covenant prohibiting dogs in the condominium by obtaining an injunction against unit owners who kept a dog despite repeated notices. The trial court dismissed the case as time-barred under specific performance limitations, but the appellate court reversed, holding that enforcement of negative covenants properly proceeds through injunctive relief with a five-year limitations period.
The court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that enforcement of negative contractual provisions is properly sought through injunctive relief, which is governed by a five-year statute of limitations under section 95.11(2)(b), not the four-year limitations period for specific performance. Since the Association's first official notice was May 16, 1996, and the complaint was filed March 8, 2000, the action was timely filed.
[1] A party seeking a temporary injunction must establish irreparable injury, no adequate remedy at law, a clear legal right to the relief, and that the public interest will…
[2] When a trial court's order on a temporary injunction is based on contract interpretation, appellate review is de novo.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Where the contractual provision sought to be enforced is negative in nature, injunctive relief is the proper vehicle for judicial enforcement.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that negative covenants are enforced through injunction, not specific performance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Owners purchased their condominium unit in 1994 and signed a document acknowledging awareness of a no-pets policy in the Declaration of Condominiu…
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 Enforcement Of Restrictive Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
J. LEONARD FLEET, Associate Judge.
Appellant Pond Apple Place III Condominium Association (“the Association”) brought suit to enforce a restrictive covenant which prohibits keeping dogs in its condominium units. Appellees Joy Russo and Vito Santangelo (collectively “the Owners”) purchased their condominium unit in 1994, at which time they were furnished a copy of the Declaration of Condominium outlining their rights and obligations. At the time of closing, the Owners signed a document acknowledging their awareness of the portion of the Declaration which states, in relevant part, “[w]e understand there are no pets allowed in this community.”
As early as 1994, a member of the condominium Board of Directors observed Russo walking her dog on condominium property and reminded her of the proscription against pets. Apparently because Russo attributed ownership to her mother and the presence of the dog as being only temporary, no enforcement action was taken.
In 1996, the Association delivered a letter to the Owners instructing them to remove the animal from the condominium premises within seven days. A second such notice was delivered to the Owners on July 1, 1998 demanding the removal of the dog no later than July 10, 1998 or the unit owners would face imposition of fines or legal action or both. A series of written communications ensued thereafter, during the course of which the identity of the actual owner of the dog and the date it would be permanently removed from the premises varied. After non-binding arbitration through the auspices of the Department of Business and Professional regulation ended in an impasse, the Association filed suit seeking an injunction requiring Owners to remove the dog forthwith.
After preliminary pleading skirmishes were resolved, the Owners responded with several defenses, including the statute of limitations. The Owners argued and the court below held the complaint filed by the Association was one for specific performance and was, therefore, time-barred by section 95.11(5)(a), Florida Statutes. We disagree with the learned trial judge and reverse.
Where the contractual provision sought to be enforced is negative in nature, injunctive relief is the proper vehicle for judicial enforcement. Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296, 1304, 128 So. 821 (1930). The applicable statute of limitations for injunction proceedings of the type here under consideration is five years. § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). The Association delivered its first official notice of violation by letter dated May 16, 1996. The Association’s Complaint for Injunctive Relief was filed on March 8, 2000, well within the time allowed by section 95.11(2)(b).
Given the resolution of this matter here set forth, further comment upon other points raised by the Association is unnecessary.
This matter is returned to the trial court with directions to reinstate the Association’s Complaint for Injunctive Relief.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Grove Isle Ass'n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ub’s amenities. The limitations period for “[a] legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument” is five years. § 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011); see also Pond Apple Place III Condo. Ass’n v. Russo, 841 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (applying five-year statute of limitations to action to enforce restrictive covenant prohibiting pets in condominium units). Thus, the Condominium Association may not assert any claims for injunctive relief that accrued befo…
-
FOX v. Madsen, 12 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…the doubt should be resolved in favor of the application of the statute containing the longest limitation period.”). Id. at 582. We applied section 95.11(2)(b), to enforce a restrictive covenant in Pond Apple Place III Condominium Ass’n v. Russo, 841 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The association brought an action against homeowners to enforce a restrictive covenant prohibiting dogs. The trial court held that the complaint was one for specific performance and was therefore time-barred. This court reversed…
-
Melbourne Ocean Club Condo. v. Elledge, 71 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…Fla. 1296, 128 So. 821, 824 (1930). The equitable remedy for breach of the former is an order requiring specific performance, while the equitable remedy for the latter is an injunction. Id.; see also Pond Apple Place III Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Russo, 841 So. 2d 526, 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Here, Appellees were requesting the court to enter an order requiring Tini-mar to perform an affirmative obligation under the rental agreements, to wit, to furnish Appellees with financial statements audited by an independe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296 (Fla. 1930)