- Majestic View Condominium
Majestic Condo Assn Appeals
Majestic appeals from an order
denying injunctive relief to enforce a provision of the
declaration of condominium which controlled the keeping of pets.
Prohibits all except one animal under 25 pounds
Prohibits all animals and pets of
any kind, except one dog or cat under twenty-five pounds, owned
by a unit owner.
Bolotin Has two dogs
Appellees acquired a dog which
thereafter grew larger than twenty-five pounds, and subsequently
acquired another large dog.
Run all over the damn place
They permitted these dogs to run at
will through the condominium, frightening residents and creating
Majestic gave notice
Appellant sent appellees several
letters, first requesting and then demanding that appellees
comply with the declaration of condominium.
Bolotin Refused to comply
Appellees refused to comply.
Majestic filed suit
Appellant filed its complaint for
Bolotin admitted allegations
Appellees answered and admitted
every factual allegation of the complaint except those relating
to adequate remedy at law, irreparable harm, and attorney's
Bolotin Countered - arbitrarily enforced or applied the pet
Appellees also filed a counterclaim
in which they alleged that appellant
arbitrarily enforced or
applied the pet restriction against them
but not against others.
Trial Court Judgment in Favor of Bolotin
The trial court found the pet rule
valid and specifically found against appellees on their
counterclaim, but nonetheless entered judgment in favor of
appellees, and awarded them attorney's fees.
asserts that the trial court erred
when it applied a previously nonexistent constitutional "due
process" test to reach the conclusion that appellant
acted arbitrarily in the course of its
pre-litigation enforcement efforts.
Appellant also contends that the
trial court erred in awarding attorneys fees to the appellee.
Requirements to Enforce Covenants
Constructive or actual notice of the
existence of the restriction by the defendant prior to
A reasonable demand for compliance
with the restriction after the breach has occurred.
Compliance with any applicable
procedural due process considerations which require notice of
the commencement of the litigation and an opportunity to be
heard in court.
Analyses of Covenant Enforcement
admitted that they had actual notice
of the subject use restriction prior to the institution of
Second, not only did appellant
establish, and appellees admit, that appellant actually notified
appellees that their actions constituted a violation of the
condominium restrictions, appellant
also established that it had a regular procedure for
notification of violations.
received notice of this action,
had a reasonable opportunity to be
heard by the court adjudicating the matter and were
provided with a full trial on the
Bolotin Relies (White Egret
Condominium and Hidden
Due process requires that there must
be some procedure by which an individual unit owner is
notice of the fact that there is a regulation.
of a violation.
opportunity to respond to that violation
Must be some
period of time in which to comply with the dictates of the
The cases do not complete or even authorize this result.
- prohibited children under the age of twelve
White Egret examined a condominium
regulation which prohibited children under the age of twelve
from residing in the condominium premises.
Does not inherently violate a fundamental right
The Court held that a condominium
restriction or limitation does not inherently violate a
fundamental right and may be enforced if it serves a legitimate
purpose and is reasonably applied.
Reasonably related to a lawful objective
The Supreme Court held that the age
restriction was reasonably related to a lawful objective.
Selectively and arbitrarily applied the reasonable restriction
to the defendant
Ruled in favor of the offending unit
owner because the Association selectively and arbitrarily
applied the reasonable restriction to the defendant but not to
other unit owners. Here the Court determined
In this case (did not selectively enforce covenants)
Bolotin was not singled out for
Nor was special treatment given to
other condominium residents with respect to the enforcement of
Hidden Harbour Estates
- Supports Majestics adoption of the restriction
It appears to us that
inherent in the condominium
concept is the principle that to promote the
health, happiness, and peace of
mind of the majority of the unit owners since they
are living in such close proximity and using facilities in
common, each unit owner must give up
a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might
otherwise enjoy in separate, privately owned property.
Condominium unit owners comprise a
little democratic sub society of necessity more restrictive as
it pertains to use of condominium property than may be existent
outside the condominium organization.
Bolotin have failed to cite any
cases or statutory requirements which would support the
conclusion reached by the trial court.
Bolotin received notice of their
violation of the condominium restrictions.
Bolotin had an ample opportunity to
comply with the restrictions but acted in defiance of the
restrictions by which they had agreed to be bound.
Majestic properly sought to enforce
the condominium restrictions through the judicial process to
remedy appellees' breach.
We find no support for the trial
court's expansion of the due process requirements as set forth
in the U.S. Const. amend. XIV, 1 and the Fla. Const. art. I
Trial court ERRED when it FAILED to
ENFORCE the restrictive covenants.