JOHN R. SPEY, BLANCHE WENZEL, WILLIAM R. LEIBOLD, JAMES YEALY, WILLIAM J. HORD, DONALD F. ELWELL, ARTHUR J. BOGAN, AND MARIAN HARRIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
HAYWARD T. HAYES, DEE PARKTON, BOB L. ECHOLS, MICHAEL M. MITCHELL, AND MOE HERSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA; W.C. JONES AND WALTON GROCERY COMPANY, INC., 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 court affirmed the trial judge's discretionary determination that modified plans for property improvements would bring the property into compliance with Santa Rosa Island Protective Covenants, rejecting both the appellants' demand for destruction and the appellees' cross-appeal arguments.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the property owner to modify plans to bring the property into compliance with restrictive covenants rather than ordering destruction of the improvements.
[1] When property improvements violate restrictive covenants, a trial court may exercise discretion to require compliance through modification or conversion to permitted uses…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“something less than the destruction of the improvements can be required and a reasonable time for conversion to permitted uses allowed”
The court's prior remand opinion established that destruction was not the only available remedy and left discretion to the trial judge to fashion appropriate relief.
Appellants sought a mandatory injunction to require removal of improvements allegedly constructed in violation of the Santa Rosa Island Protective Cov…
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 Breach Of Restrictive Covenant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal and cross-appeal from a final order of the trial judge on remand. In Spey v. Hayes, 406 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this court remanded for determination of the relief to be afforded appellants in a suit seeking a mandatory injunction to require removal of improvements allegedly constructed in violation of the Santa Rosa Island Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Noting that “something less than the destruction of the improvements can be required and a reasonable time for conversion to permitted uses allowed,” this court left the determination of the relief to be afforded appellants to the discretion of the trial judge, after taking into account the factual matters and equitable considerations involved.
Since no abuse of discretion by the trial judge requiring reversal has been shown, we affirm his finding that the plans submitted by the property owner, as modified by the trial court, will bring the subject property into compliance with the restrictive covenants and this court’s opinion. Cross-appellants’ assertions of error are without merit. The order is affirmed without prejudice to appellees’ right to seek waiver or modification of the covenants in question, with the written consent of the majority of the lessees of the lots in the area, under the terms of the covenants.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.