PLAZA DEL PRADO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HARRY RICHMAN AND IRENE RICHMAN, HIS WIFE, 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.
A condominium association appealed a judgment requiring it to enforce bylaws against unit owners who modified their terrace railings without prior written approval. The court affirmed, finding the association was estopped from enforcing the bylaws because it had previously granted similar modifications to other residents and delayed enforcement by over a year.
The association was estopped from enforcing the bylaws against the Richmans because: (1) it had previously granted permission for identical modifications to other residents; (2) the Richmans received permission from the developer's authorized representatives at the time of purchase; and (3) the association failed to assert its enforcement rights within a reasonable time, waiting over one year after the modifications.
[1] A condominium association may be estopped from enforcing its bylaws when it has previously permitted similar deviations from the bylaws by other unit owners or has implic…
[2] A condominium association has a duty to assert itself promptly upon discovering an alleged violation of its bylaws.
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“Based upon this evidence, plaintiff is estopped from claiming any lack of compliance with the by-laws.”
Establishes the primary holding that the association's prior conduct barred it from enforcing the bylaw violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarry and Irene Richman owned unit 1604 in a condominium tower and modified their terrace railings in color and material from the original without wri…
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
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant condominium association seeks review of a final judgment in favor of defendant-appellee unit owners in an action for mandatory injunction to compel defendants to comply with the rules of the association and remove their non-conforming terrace railings.
Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc. filed a complaint for mandatory injunction praying that Harry and Irene Richman, owners of unit 1604 in Tower 3 South, be required to remove the present railings from their terrace and restore the terrace to its original condition. Plaintiff alleged that contrary to the bylaws of the association defendants, without the permission of 51% of the members, installed terrace railings which differ in both color and material from the original railings thereby altering the uniformity of the building’s exterior. The cause was tried non-jury and the testimony reflected that at the time defendants purchased their unit they were granted permission by the sale representative and his supervisor to make the change in the terrace railings. The owner/developer testified that the supervisor had the authority to and did approve changes from time to time.
The record also reflects that defendant's brother, who owns the unit directly below them, had previously been granted permission by the developer/owner to make the identical changes to his terrace railings. Further, other unit owners were also permitted to make changes to their terrace railings with the permission of the owner/developer or the association. Last, more than one year had elapsed after the changes had been made before plaintiff association notified defendants that they were in violation of the condominium bylaws and demanded that the original railings be restored.
Based upon this evidence, plaintiff is es-topped from claiming any lack of compliance with the bylaws. See Quality Shell Homes & Supply Company v. Roley, 186 So. 2d 837 (Fla.1st DCA 1966); Phoenix Insurance Company v. McQueen, 286 So. 2d 570, 572 (Fla.1st DCA 1974). In addition, plaintiff conceded that some of the terraces had been changed with the permission of the owner/developer and/or the association and, therefore, the exterior appearance of the building is not uniform. Under the circumstances, we also point out that plaintiff was under a duty to assert itself sooner than one year after the defendants’ alleged violation of the bylaws.
Based on the evidence presented, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in entering final judgment for the defendants. See, e. g. Lamb v. Dade County, 159 So. 2d 477 (Fla.3d DCA 1964).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White Egret Condo., Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1979)…a lawful objective, the appellant is estopped from selectively enforcing the age restriction. See Fifty-Six Sixty Collins Avenue Condominium, Inc. v. Dawson, 354 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), and Plaza Del Prado Condominium Ass'n., Inc. v. Richman, 345 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Single Family Use of the Condominium The condominium agreement prohibited use of the condominium apartment for any purpose other than as a single family residence. The agreement, however, failed to define the term “single famil…
-
Ladner v. Plaza del Prado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…dants failed to comply with such requests of the Board of Directors resulting in the filing of the instant case. 7. That based upon the evidence presented to the court, the court finds that as a result of the decision in Plaza Del Prado v. Richman, 345 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) a certain group of unit owners who had received permission from the developer of the Plaza Del Prado Condominium were allowed to maintain their terrace railings with the alterations permitted by the developer. 8. That as a result…
-
Pelican Island Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Murphy, 554 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…the truth. Brickell Bay, 512 So. 2d at 997; Ennis, 203 So. 2d at 520. There simply are no factors present which justify the application of waiver or estoppel principles. This case is unlike Plaza del Prado Condominium Association, Inc. v. Rickman, 345 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), in which a condominium association approved nonconforming changes from time to time, and over one year had elapsed before the association notified the owners they were in violation of the condominium declaration. Under those fact…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Quality Shell Homes & Supply Co., Inc. v. Roley, 186 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Lamb v. Dade Cnty., 159 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- The Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Cheri Ann McQUEEN, 286 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)