Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc. v. Richman

FL · Florida Third District Court of Appeal

Member win · other

What happened

Plaza Del Prado sued Harry and Irene Richman for a mandatory injunction to restore original terrace railings after they installed different color/material railings. Evidence showed purchase-time approval by authorized sales personnel/developer, identical approval for the brother's unit below, other permitted exterior changes, and more than a year's delay before demand. The trial court entered judgment for the owners; on May 10, 1977, the Third DCA affirmed on estoppel/inconsistent-enforcement grounds.

What the court (or agency) held

The association was estopped from forcing removal of nonconforming terrace railings where authorized sales personnel/developer approved the change at purchase, the owner's brother received identical approval for the unit below, other owners received similar permissions, the building exterior was already non-uniform by permission, and the association waited more than a year to demand restoration. Judgment for the unit owners was affirmed. Classic Florida inconsistent-enforcement/estoppel companion.

Why this matters for members

Developer/agent approvals, parallel permissions, and delayed enforcement can estop later uniformity demands. A building already non-uniform by permission undermines mandatory restoration injunctions.

What the member did

Documented authorized approval at purchase, comparable permitted alterations (including a sibling's unit), and association delay exceeding a year.

Questions for the board

Questions for a lawyer

Citation

Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc. v. Richman, 345 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); No. 76-979 (1977-05-10). Florida Third District Court of Appeal. Outcome chip: member_win. Source: https://exa.ai/library/legal/opinion/zln9fcm69mks77mywg6vv7t3

_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._

Source opinion

General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.

Not a law firm. Not legal advice. Confirm this against your documents and your state’s law.