Ladner v. PLAZA DEL PRADO, ETC.
423 So. 2d 927 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Statements made by an appellate court in an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary injunction that are beyond the narrow issue of irreparable harm constitute obiter dictum and are not binding as law of the case on the merits in subsequent proceedings. A condominium association's prospective enforcement of its rules, where a developer previously allowed some alterations and prior litigation grandfathered certain existing alterations, does not constitute impermissible selective enforcement.
Facts:
- William and Judith Ladner owned a condominium unit in Plaza Del Prado Condominium.
- The Declaration of Condominium required prior written approval for any unit owner to decorate or change the appearance of any portion of the exterior of the apartment building.
- The Ladners materially altered the railings of their terrace without seeking or obtaining the requisite prior approval.
- The Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association notified the Ladners of their violation and requested compliance.
- The Ladners failed to comply with the Association's requests.
- Historically, a certain group of unit owners had received permission from the developer of Plaza Del Prado Condominium to maintain their terrace railings with alterations.
- A prior court decision, Plaza Del Prado v. Richman (1977), legally permitted this group of unit owners to maintain their alterations, meaning the Association was without authority to compel their compliance.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc. (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against William and Judith Ladner (defendants) in a trial court (court of first instance) seeking a preliminary injunction to compel them to restore their terrace railing to its original condition.
- The trial court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Ladners to correct the non-conforming condition.
- The Ladners (appellants) appealed the order granting the preliminary injunction to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the preliminary injunction, stating that the association's action constituted selective enforcement and that irreparable harm had not been shown (Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 384 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)).
- The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on the merits.
- After a full hearing on the merits, the trial court entered a Final Judgment ordering the Ladners to restore their terrace railing.
- The Ladners (appellants) appealed the Final Judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an appellate court's statement, made during the review of a preliminary injunction, that a condominium association engaged in selective enforcement, constitute binding law of the case for a subsequent trial on the merits? 2. Does a condominium association's enforcement of architectural uniformity rules only prospectively, while allowing pre-existing, developer-approved, or judicially-protected alterations to remain, constitute impermissible selective enforcement?
Opinions:
Majority - ferguson
No, the appellate court's prior statement regarding selective enforcement made during the review of a preliminary injunction does not constitute binding law of the case. The narrow issue before the court in the interlocutory appeal was solely whether the Association had demonstrated, free from doubt, that a preliminary injunction was necessary to prevent great and irreparable injury. The expression that the Association was selectively enforcing its rules was beyond what was necessary to decide that narrow issue, and thus was obiter dictum and without force. Furthermore, a preliminary injunction does not decide the merits of a case unless the hearing is specially set for that purpose and the parties have a full opportunity to present their cases. Since parties are not required to prove their case in full at a preliminary injunction hearing, any findings of fact or conclusions of law made at that stage, or expressions made by an appellate court reviewing such an order, are not binding at a subsequent trial on the merits. No, the Association's actions do not constitute impermissible selective enforcement. The trial court's findings, supported by competent and substantial evidence, established that the alterations made by unit owners with the developer's permission (before the Association took over enforcement) were the only alterations allowed to continue. The Association, since inheriting enforcement responsibility, has consistently precluded any further violations of the agreement to maintain architectural uniformity. The fact that the Association has consistently performed its duty to enforce the mutual agreement prospectively, despite prior laxity by the developer or specific exceptions carved out by prior court rulings, does not constitute selective and arbitrary conduct in violation of White Egret Condominium v. Franklin.
Analysis:
This case clarifies crucial distinctions in appellate procedure and condominium law. It reinforces that judicial pronouncements on interlocutory appeals, especially for preliminary injunctions, are generally limited to the immediate procedural question and do not establish binding law of the case on the merits unless specific conditions for a full hearing are met. This protects parties from having the merits of their case decided prematurely on an incomplete record. Furthermore, the ruling provides important guidance for condominium associations regarding the enforcement of rules, indicating that prospective enforcement of architectural standards is permissible even when pre-existing, legally protected non-conforming conditions exist, as long as the association acts consistently and not arbitrarily concerning new violations.
