MARIANO R. GONZALEZ AND RENE GONZALEZ, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLAMINGO ESTATES MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION, 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 Gonzalezes appealed a summary judgment granting an injunction requiring them to modify their home's exterior to comply with architectural guidelines. The court reversed the summary judgment as to the Gonzalezes' affirmative defense that the homeowners association acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying their deviation request, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on this defense.
The court reversed the summary judgment as to the affirmative defense of arbitrary and capricious enforcement because genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary judgment on that defense. The court affirmed the summary judgment as to all other issues but remanded for further proceedings to allow the Gonzalezes to present their affirmative defense.
[1] A homeowner may defend against the enforcement of a restrictive covenant by asserting that the enforcing authority acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable mann…
[2] The burden of proving unreasonable or arbitrary enforcement of a restrictive covenant rests on the party challenging enforcement.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 homeowner may defend against enforcement of an otherwise valid restrictive covenant on the ground that the enforcing authority acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner”
Establishes the legal principle that homeowners have a defense to restrictive covenant enforcement based on arbitrary or unreasonable enforcement, even if the covenant itself is valid.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Gonzalezes made unauthorized modifications to the exterior of their home in Flamingo Estates, including altering patio dimensions, placing a hot t…
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 Permanent Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Mariano and Rene Gonzalez appeal a final summary judgment granting permanent injunctive relief to the Flamingo Estates Maintenance Association, Inc. (“Flamingo”). The mandatory injunction, which resulted from unauthorized modifications appellants made to the exterior of their home, requires appellants to alter the dimensions of their patio, relocate their hot tub, remove unapproved landscaping, and enclose a screen over the hot tub and Tiki hut, to comply with the architectural plans originally approved by Flamingo.
We reverse the order granting Flamingo’s summary judgment motion as to the Gonzalezes’ affirmative defense that Flamingo’s actions in denying their request for deviations from the approved plan were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. As to this defense, there remained genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. See Prisco v. Forest Villas Condo., 847 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)(recognizing that a homeowner may defend against enforcement of an otherwise valid restrictive covenant on the ground that the enforcing authority acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner); Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass’n v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)(holding that the party challenging enforcement of a restrictive covenant has the burden of proving defensive matters such as unreasonable or arbitrary enforcement, and noting that the burden is a heavy one where the enforcing party has the absolute right to approve or disapprove any plans which it deems are not suitable or desirable, even for purely aesthetic reasons); Anderson v. Rosetree Vill. Ass’n, 540 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)(holding that where the townhouse association did not controvert the defense of arbitrary and capricious action factually or establish its legal insufficiency, the summary judgment must be reversed).
We affirm as to all other issues raised by appellants, but reverse and remand for further proceedings to allow appellants to present their affirmative defense of unreasonable or arbitrary enforcement.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Anderson v. Rosetree Vill. Ass'n, Inc., 540 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Prisco v. Forest Villas Condo. Apts., Inc., 847 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)