Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, deals with homeowners' associations. It provides legal redress against the association, members, directors, and officers for failure to comply with statutes, association documents, or community rules. Prevailing parties in the litigation are entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2002)....

...nants and restrictions. Gulf Landings answered and counterclaimed, seeking an order requiring Mr. Hershberger to remove the cover. It too requested an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to the declaration of covenants and restrictions and pursuant to section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2001). In his answer to the counterclaim, Mr. Hershberger asserted section 720.305 as an additional ground for his claim for attorneys' fees....

...restrictive covenants, alleging that she had failed to maintain her lawn and landscaping. In her answer, Kirkwood brought a counterclaim for slander of title and also demanded her attorney’s fees and costs, as permitted under Florida Statute § 720.305(1),1 if she prevailed in the lawsuit. Culbreath notified Travelers, its insurer, of Kirkwood’s counterclaim. Travelers provided counsel to defend the counterclaim under a reservation of rights....

...Culbreath continued to represent the association on its claim against Kirkwood for violating the restrictive covenants. The state court granted summary judgment to Kirkwood. Kirkwood then filed a motion seeking her attorney’s fees and costs under § 720.305....

...wo-and-a-half on any fee 1 This statute authorizes, among other things, homeowners associations to bring actions against their members for violating the community’s governing documents or the association’s rules. See Fla. Stat. § 720.305(1)....

...The parties attended mediation in September, 2005, which was unsuccessful. The Association refiled the complaint. Ultimately, the Asads acceded to the demands of the Association by paying $1,000 in fines and repainting their home. In the dismissed action, the Asads moved for attorney's fees under section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2004), which provides that the "prevailing party" in litigation between the association and a member "is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs." The trial court ruled that the Asads were "entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as prevailing parties" and entered a judgment for $8,146. The issue in this case is whether the Asads were "prevailing parties" under section 720.305(1)....

...d as party defendants. Id. The second district held that the association was the prevailing party in the first action within the meaning of section 718.303(1), Florida Statutes (1979), a statute *319 containing "prevailing party" language similar to section 720.305(1)....

...Section 627.428(1), Florida Statutes (1995), at issue in Britamco, provided for prevailing party attorney's fees "[u]pon the rendition of a judgment or decree." Id. at 786. The statute here at issue provides for an award of fees to the "prevailing party" in "litigation." § 720.305(1), Fla....

...n between the parties was the result of a simple misunderstanding the parties should have resolved between themselves. The trial judge concluded that Dr. Rao was the prevailing party in the litigation and thus entitled to attorneys' fees pursuant to section 720.305(1)....

...[3] In the judgment, the trial court concluded that Dr. Rao was a third-party beneficiary to the management contract between the Association and Greenacre Properties and that Greenacre Properties had breached the agreement. The court held that Dr. Rao was entitled to statutory damages under section 720.305 in the amount of $500....

...As such, it appears that this lawsuit might have been pursued to obtain damages from the Association that Dr. Rao had not successfully recovered in the first trial. [5] Dr. Rao has asserted that this recitation makes Dr. Rao the prevailing party in this litigation under chapter 720, entitling him to attorneys' fees. See § 720.305(1)....

...f the complaint. See Hawkins v. Williams, 200 So.2d 800, 802 (Fla.1967). In this case, the complaint on its face stated a cause of action for an injunction to compel compliance with the provisions of the declaration cited in the complaint. Moreover, section 720.305(l)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that “[ajctions at law or in equity, or both, to redress alleged failure or refusal to comply with these provisions may be brought by the association ......

...mittee recommended that Marbella’s Board of Directors fine the homeowners $100 for each day the violation went uncorrected. Marbella set the total fine at $1,000, the maximum Florida law allows for a single, continuing violation. See Fla. Stat. § 720.305(2)....

Klingensmith, J. Jonathan M. Dwork (“appellant”) asks this court to decide whether Executive Estates of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association , (“HOA”) was obligated under section 720.305(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), to provide him with fourteen days’ notice of a hearing on alleged violations of maintenance requirements before imposing fines, or whether HOA could be entitled to money damages for unpaid fines so long as it substantially complied With the statute’s' notice provision....

...The cause went to a non-jury trial in April 2016, whereupon the court entered - final judgment. On the first count, the court denied foreclosure since the thirteen-day notice provided to appellant by HOA did not comply with the fourteen-day notice provision of section 720.305(2)(b) or HOA’s declarations and bylaws, thereby rendering the HOA unable to enforce its claim of lien against appellant’s property....

...that the “equities of this cause [were] with [HOA] and against [appellant].” The court also granted HOA entitlement to reasonable fees and costs. This appeal followed. As this is a matter of statutory interpretation, we review the application of section 720.305 de novo. Miles v. Parrish, 199 So.3d 1046, 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). At the time when HOA sent appellant the hearing notice, section 720.305(2)(b) provided that “[a] fine or suspension may not be imposed without at least 14 days’ notice to the person sought to be fined or suspended and an opportunity for a hearing before a committee.” 1 As to the first count for foreclosure on the claim of lien, the court properly denied relief. Pursuant to section 720.305(2)(b), HOA was required to provide appellant with at least fourteen days’ notice of the fine committee hearing. Section 720.305(2)(b) is protective, and the notice requirement functions as a condition precedent to the attachment of a lien....

...Failure to provide sufficient time to prepare a defense to a claim of violation deprives the homeowner of due process, thus negating the validity *861 of any resulting lien obtained from such noncompliance. Nothing in the wording of the statute implies 'that compliance with the time requirement is discretionary. Since section 720.305(2)(b) is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be strictly construed....

...5th DCA 2006) (“A construction lien is ‘purely a creature of the statute,’ and because it is of this nature, persons seeking its benefits must strictly comply with the requirements of the construction lien law.”). HOA argues that substantial compliance with section 720.305(2)(b) was sufficient, especially since appellant was not prejudiced by the lack of an extra day’s notice....

...’ lien law. The courts have permitted substantial compliance or adverse effect to be considered in determining the validity of a lien when there are specific statutory exceptions which permit their consideration. 581 So.2d at 160 (emphasis added). Section 720.305 does not contain any “specific statutory exceptions which permit” the trial court to consider substantial compliance with the notice requirement or lack of prejudice to the person sought to be fined. Where a statute’s language is clear and unambiguous, the power to construe it does not exist. Cimino v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 183 So.3d 1242, 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Because section 720.305(2)(b) is unambiguous as to its fourteen-day written notice requirement and does not contain any exceptions permitting considerations of substantial compliance or lack of prejudice, we must reject HOA’s contention that its thirteen d...

...liance with the statutory requirements to perfect its entitlement to a lien. Yet, for these same reasons, the trial court *862 erred in awarding money damages to HOA for unpaid fines based on what it perceived to be the “equities” of the¡ case, Section 720.305(2)(b) explicitly provides that no fine may be imposed without at least fourteen days’ notice to the person sought to be fined....

...the same way he did with all the prior notices. While the trial court was correct in its view that the equities in this case certainly favored HOA, case law nonetheless compels us to hold that HOA was required to strictly comply with the dictates of section 720.305(2)(b) to perfect its ability to impose and collect the fines. Accordingly, we. reverse the final judgment and remand for entry of final judgment in favor of appellant. Reversed and Remanded. May and Kuntz, JJ., concur. . While section 720.305(2)(b) has since been amended, the fourteen-day notice provision has not.

...The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the developer, and we affirmed that order in Holiday Isle Improvement Association, Inc. v. Destin Parcel 160, LLC, 2018 WL 4139351 (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 30, 2018). The trial court also awarded prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs to the developer under section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2013), and in this appeal, the association challenges that award. The association argues that there was no legal basis for the award of attorney’s fees and costs to the developer because its suit was filed...

...d of prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs. The developer responds that the absence of authority for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in chapter 86 and the protective covenants is immaterial because the award here was properly based on section 720.305(1). We agree with the developer. Section 720.305(1) provides in pertinent part: Each member and ....

...* * * The prevailing party in any such litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs .... (emphasis added). 1 Even though the declaratory judgment complaint filed by the association did not refer to section 720.305, 1 The statute further provides that in addition to recovering attorney’s fees and costs, “[a] member prevailing in an action between the association and the member under this section ....

...s case 2 the suit was a de facto action under that section because it sought to redress the developer’s alleged failure or refusal to comply with the protective covenants. Accordingly, under the plain language of section 720.305(1), the developer was entitled to an award of its attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party in the suit. The association also argues that the statute cannot be retroactively applied here because the protective covenant...

...Century 21 Condominium Association, Inc. v. Cohen, 378 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), the imposition of prevailing party because the developer was only awarded its attorney’s fees and costs. 3 attorney’s fees and costs under section 720.305(1) is consistent with—and does not impair—the bargained-for terms of the protective covenants here. For these reasons (and because we find no merit in the other issues raised by the association), we affirm the award of prevai...

...full relief in this action.” Lastly, Florida law allows homeowners to bring “[a]ctions at law or in equity” against other homeowners to “redress alleged failures or refusal” to comply with the restrictive covenants governing their homeowners’ association. § 720.305(1)(b), Fla. Stat....

...The Leonpachers sought and obtained summary judgment against the Grand Oaks Homeowners’ Association (GOHA). Subsequently, they filed a motion for attorney’s fees. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court determined that the Leonpachers were the prevailing party but denied their motion. Section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2007), and Article XI, section 2 of GOHA’s declaration of covenants provide that a prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees....

...Because the trial court erred in concluding that Madill had failed to demonstrate excusable neglect, we reverse.  Madill was the prevailing party in a civil suit brought by Rivercrest Community Association, Inc. Pursuant to the governing documents of the Association and to section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2017), she was entitled as the prevailing party to recover the attorney's fees and costs incurred in her defense....

...Rosenberg appeals from the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees to *643 MetroWest Master Association, Inc. (“the Master Association”). On appeal, Rosenberg argues that the trial court erred in finding he was a “member” of the Master Association within the meaning of sections 720.301(10) and 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2009)....

...rs’ associations from developers to association members. After a hearing, the trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of the Master Association. The Master Association thereafter moved for prevailing-party attorney’s fees pursuant to section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes....

...Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, was enacted “to provide procedures for operating homeowners’ associations” and “to protect the rights of association members without unduly impairing the ability of such associations to perform their functions.” § 720.302(1), Fla. Stat. (2009). Section 720.305(1) provides a cause of action for a “member” of a homeowners’ association to redress the association’s failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of chapter 720....

...The fact that Rosenberg actually pays assessments to his community association is not dispositive because he is ultimately obligated to pay them to the Master Association. Next, Rosenberg argues that, in determining whether he was liable for attorney’s fees under section 720.305(1), the trial court should have applied the definition of “member” found in the Master Association’s governing documents rather than the statutory definition of “member.” Rosenberg relies on section 720.302(2), which provide...

...impair vested contract rights). We further conclude that Rosenberg is estopped from denying liability for the attorney’s fees because, by bringing suit, he held himself out to be a “member” of the Master Association with standing to sue under section 720.305(1)....

...Rosenberg cannot now change his position in order to avoid liability for attorney’s fees. We find Rosenberg’s remaining arguments to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. SAWAYA, COHEN and BERGER, JJ., concur. . In pertinent part, section 720.305(1) provides: Each member ......

So.2d 1098, 1101 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)). Section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2015), provides any member

...to restore the swale to its original condition. The Association also pleaded for an award of attorney’s fees in counts one, two, and four based upon a provision contained in the restrictive covenants that permitted such an award and pursuant to section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides for an award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in any action at law or in equity seeking redress for the alleged failure or refusal to comply with the governing documents of th...

...ations and raising several affirmative defenses. Olson also sought an award of attorney’s fees on counts one, two, and four based on the same provision of the restrictive covenants and section 3 720.305(1), as well as the reciprocity provisions of section 57.105(7), Florida Statutes (2011). Following trial, the court entered final judgment in favor of Olson on counts one and four based upon Olson’s affirmative defenses of laches, statute of limitations, and statute of repose....

...in the same cause. Id. 5  In the instant case, the Association filed a multi-count complaint and sought an award of attorney’s fees for counts one, two, and four pursuant to the restrictive covenants and section 720.305(1)....

...dead grass and a dirty driveway in violation of the Declaration by failing to give her notice of the alleged violations and by further failing to provide the statutorily required fourteen days' notice of a hearing prior to assessing these fines. See § 720.305(2)(b), Fla....

...ting summary judgment on the basis that Ms. Pirman has not suffered any damages, which is dispositive to this case, we do not reach the remaining issues related to whether the Association complied with its Declaration and/or governing documents and section 720.305(b)(2)'s fourteen-day notice requirement or whether the county ordinance precluded Ms....

...e of fact. However, homeowners subject to an association's governing documents are expressly permitted to bring suit against the association if and when the association fails to comply with its statutory or contractual obligations to the homeowners. Section 720.305(1)(a) allows association members to sue an association "at law or in equity, or both," to redress an association's alleged failure to comply with the community's governing documents....

...Ms. Pirman's motion for rehearing was denied by the county court. 3 limitation, to enforce covenants); see also Rosenberg v. MetroWest Master Ass'n, 116 So. 3d 641, 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (acknowledging that section 720.305(1) expands a member's rights to sue an association for violations of chapter 720). Moreover, Ms....

...The court did as requested and adopted the settlement agreement, dismissed the action, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and determine entitlement to fees. Prior to the court adopting the settlement agreement, the Association timely moved for prevailing party attorney’s fees under section 720.305, Florida Statutes, and the fee provision in the declaration....

...arate actions in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida, alleging that the condition of their respective properties violated the Culbreath Isles Homeowners’ Association’s bylaws. Cul-breath sued these parties under section 720.305, Florida Statutes, which contains a “prevailing party” attorney’s fee provision....

...parate actions in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Florida, alleging that the condition of their respective properties violated the Culbreath Isles homeowners’ association’s bylaws. Culbreath sued these parties under section 720.305, Florida Statutes, which contains a “prevailing party” attorney’s fee provision and, therefore, Culbreath was aware that if it lost these cases it would have to pay the prevailing defendants’ fees....

...erwise offer coverage for those amounts. Construing the Policy as Plaintiffs suggest would allow insureds to use such policies to avoid the consequences of losing actions they initiate. As Travelers argues, fee-shifting provisions such as the one in section 720.305, Florida Statutes, at issue here, section 57.105, Florida Statutes, and Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, would effectively be eviscerated by a ruling that requires insurance companies to indemnify insureds for losses incurred in actions the insureds start, even those with no merit....

...By the time Travelers was given an opportunity to participate in the litigation regarding the fee claims, Culbreath had already lost its case against the homeowners, meaning fees would be awarded to the homeowners, as the prevailing parties, pursuant to section 720.305, Florida Statutes....

... Case: 15-15197 Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Page: 3 of 21 landscaping. In her answer, Kirkwood brought a counterclaim for slander of title and also demanded her attorney’s fees and costs, as permitted under Florida Statute § 720.305(1),1 if she prevailed in the lawsuit. Culbreath notified Travelers, its insurer, of Kirkwood’s counterclaim. Travelers provided counsel to defend the counterclaim under a reservation of rights....

...Culbreath continued to represent the association on its claim against Kirkwood for violating the restrictive covenants. The state court granted summary judgment to Kirkwood. Kirkwood then filed a motion seeking her attorney’s fees and costs under § 720.305....

...Culbreath contested this amount, retaining an expert who opined that the 1 This statute authorizes, among other things, homeowners associations to bring actions against their members for violating the community’s governing documents or the association’s rules. See Fla. Stat. § 720.305(1)....

...a claim for “Nuisance” and “Trespass.” She dismissed these counts before trial, as well as all other defendants except the Association. 2  Gonzalez then filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2008)....

...Actions for damages or for injunctive relief, or both, for failure to comply with these provisions may be brought by the association or by a unit owner against: (a) The association. (b) A unit owner. § 718.303(1) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 720.305(1) authorizes courts to impose equitable remedies in disputes between homeowners and their associations: 3  (1) Each member and the member’s tenants, guests, and invitees, and e...

...reasonableness, i.e., [it] must be supported by logic and justification for the result and founded on substantial, competent evidence.” In re Guardianship of Sapp, 868 So. 2d 687, 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In addition to the excerpt cited above, section 720.305(1) provides, “The prevailing party in any such litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.” This section specifically covers disputes that occur between homeowners and homeowner’s associations....

...If this turns out to have been a waste of the court’s time, other remedies are available. REVERSED and REMANDED. PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . These documents granting assessment and lien authority to the Association have not been included in the record. . Renumbered as § 720.305 by Laws 2000, c.2000-258, § 51, eff....

...pressure cleaned the affected areas as of the date of the filing of the complaint. On its own initiative, the court found that Homeowners were entitled to attorney’s fees as section 57.105 sanctions. The court also awarded Homeowners prevailing party attorney’s fees pursuant to section 720.305, Florida Statutes....

...ad not been provided. Pecchia and Porter sought the issuance of a mandatory injunction requiring Wayside to produce the requested official records. They additionally sought statutory damages under section 720.303(5) and attorney’s fees pursuant to section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2019). This issue proceeded to a bench trial....

...provide for mandatory compliance. See Dwork v. Exec. Est. of Boynton Beach Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 219 So. 3d 858 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that where a homeowners’ association gave thirteen days’ notice rather than the required fourteen-day notice under section 720.305(b), substantial compliance was not authorized because the statute provided for a strict fourteen-day notice). It was undisputed at trial that Wayside failed to provide for inspection of the requested records based on the November 1, 2019 request within the ten-day statutory deadline....

...business as Harbor Hills Development, Ltd. (“the Developer”), H.H.C.C., Inc., a Delaware corporation and general partner of the Developer, and Michael Rich (collectively, “Appellees”). The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Appellees as the prevailing parties based on section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2013), and Article XI, Section 2, of the Amendment and Restatement of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Harbor Hills....

...changes to the parcel or the common areas and other covenant enforcement disputes[.]” § 720.311(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). Access to the parcel does not involve use or changes to the parcel or covenant enforcement issues. Recognizing that an association should not bar access, section 720.305(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), provides that an association may not prohibit an owner’s access to a parcel for violation of the declarations, by-laws, or rules of the association....

...ory judgment concerning whether the homeowner had violated the homeowners’ association’s deed restrictions. 845 So.2d at 345 . In his complaint, the homeowner sought attorney’s fees pursuant to the declaration of covenants and restrictions and section 720.305, Florida Statutes (2001)....

...Tahiti Beach Homeowners Association, Inc., appeals a partial final summary judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Pfeffer regarding the Association's complaint to foreclose a lien for a $285,000 fine. The fine, imposed for the alleged violation of a "Homesite Construction Rule," [1] did not *809 meet the requirements of section 720.305(2), Florida Statutes (2007), regulating the imposition of fines by homeowners' associations....

...The issue for decision below and here is a question of law: does the statute, enacted in 1995, apply to the Homesite Construction Rule, adopted by the Association in 1993 or 1994, with respect to alleged violations of the Rule occurring 2007-09? We answer the question in the affirmative. The caption to section 720.305 is "Obligations of members; remedies at law or in equity; levy of fines and suspension of use rights." The limitations on fines, and the requirements for prior notice and a hearing, imposed by the statute are unquestionably procedural and remedial in nature....

...of the amendment. In the case of such amendments—but not in the case of amendments affecting or impairing substantive rights—retrospective application is required unless the legislation itself provides otherwise. Here, the pertinent amendments to section 720.305 did not specify that they would only be applicable to homeowners' association documents entered into after the effective date of the legislation....

...formed under chapter 723." Section 720.302 (4), Fla. Stat. 11 See, Art. I , s. 10 , Fla. Const., stating that "[n]o bill . . . impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed." 12 Section 720.303 , Fla. Stat. 13 Section 720.304 , Fla. Stat. 14 Section 720.305 , Fla....

...four years; (3) breach of declarations: five years; and (4) private nuisance: four years. See § 95.11(2)(b), (3)(g), (3)(p), Fla. Stat. (2012). Unless otherwise provided by 3 The Association requested fees pursuant to (1) section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2013), which provides for prevailing party attorney's fees in "[a]ctions at law or in equity, or both, to redress alleged failure or refusal to comply with these provisions," and (2) section 13.5 of the declarati...

...The parties have not presented an argument that a duty from a condominium assQciation’s members to the respective owners — or lack thereof — is evident from legislative, enactments, administrative regulations, or any judicial interpretations of ■such. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. § 720.305 (“Obligations of members; l'emedies at law or in equity; levy of fines and suspension of use rights.”)....

...days of the more recent order.”). The Appellees’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees Rene and Surmaty move for appellate attorney’s fees on the following grounds: By operation of Fla. Stat. § 702 [sic], et seq., § 720.3085, and § 720.305, Appellees are entitled to recover attorney’s fees under a statute awarding fees to the prevailing party setting aside a foreclosure decree in litigation....

...Section 720.3085(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2024), states in relevant part: “The association is entitled to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in an action to foreclose a lien or an action to recover a money judgment for unpaid assessments.” Section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2024), states in relevant part: (1) Each member and the member’s tenants, guests, and invitees, and each association, are governed by, and must comply with, this chapter, the governin...

...action, sued only as a party with a potential interest in the property due to his status as a judgment creditor of the principal defendant. And Surmaty was not a named defendant at all—he was a third-party purchaser at a foreclosure sale. The fee provisions in section 720.3085 and section 720.305(1) do not authorize an award of fees to Rene or Surmaty on these facts....

...1st DCA 1992); accord Coyne, 645 So. 2d at 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Daniel, 143 So. 2d at 538 (explaining that “an injunction against violation of restrictive covenants may be granted although there is no showing of irreparable injury”). Section 720.305(1) Allows for Equitable Relief Even Where a Remedy at Law is also Available The Florida’s Homeowners’ Association Act is consistent with this traditional rule for the enforcement of restrictive covenants on land. Section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes (2022), authorizes an association or any member to bring “[a]ctions at law or in equity, or both, to redress alleged failure or refusal to comply with” the provisions of chapter 720, the governing documents, and the rules of the association. (Emphasis added). By using the phrase “or both,” section 720.305(1) unambiguously gives an association the right to seek relief in equity, even if an action at law is also available to redress the alleged violation....

...Id. at 300. One of the defendants argued that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the declaration provided that the association might purchase insurance and charge the owner. Id. at 301. Rejecting that approach, we suggested that section 720.305(1)(b) was “authority for the Association to bring an equitable action to enforce” the declaration against a member, even if a self-help remedy also existed. Id. In addition, section 720.305(1) signaled no explicit and clear intent to change the longstanding Florida common law dating back to Stephl and earlier....

...common law, or is so repugnant to the common law that the two cannot coexist, the statute will not be held to have changed the common law. Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 568 So. 2d 914, 918 (Fla. 1990) (citations omitted). As is demonstrated above, section 720.305(1) is entirely consistent with the common law, not repugnant to it. 7  Our reading of section 720.305(1) is consistent with the caution Florida statutes and cases have observed when it comes to the “remedy” of self- help....

...possession”); Paese v. State, 381 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (involving felony criminal charges and a stand-your-ground hearing arising from an investigation of a possible building code violation by a condominium owner). We decline to construe section 720.305(1) in a way that (1) burdens the use of injunctions, the most expeditious and safest way to remedy a covenant violation, and (2) elevates self-help to a preferred remedy....

...Such an application of the statute would unnecessarily complicate the enforcement of covenants under Chapter 720 and increase litigation expenses. In this Case, Self-Help was Not an Adequate Remedy at Law Even if we were to depart from established law and a plain reading of section 720.305(1), we would still reject the notion that self-help was an adequate remedy at law in this case....

...Because the complaint sought injunctive relief for the violation of a restrictive covenant governing real property, the Association was not required to allege or prove irreparable harm or the absence of an adequate remedy at law. This conclusion is consistent with Stephl, Autozone, Suarez, and section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes. 10  The Conflict Cases We certify an express and direct conflict with two cases holding that a declaration’s self-help provision constituted...

...at 369. 12 chose not to attempt to utilize this option, an adequate remedy at law is left outstanding.” Id. The conflict cases give inadequate consideration to longstanding case law and the plain language of section 720.305(1)....

...the Park Crossing neighbors and community” by protecting “the rights and well-being of the neighbors’ while remaining considerate of the Suarezes’ interests.” 14  Chapter 720 and the Law Regarding Injunctions “Section 720.305(1) authorizes ‘[a]ctions at law or in equity, or both, to redress alleged failure or refusal to comply with’ the requirements of chapter 720, the governing documents, and the rules of the association.” McConico v....

...4th DCA 1994) (explaining that “irreparable injury is not required to be shown to enjoin a violation of a restrictive covenant affecting real property,” and that the “declaration of covenants clearly were covenants restricting real property”). 5 Sections 718.303 and 720.305, Florida Statutes (2017), contain identical language on the availability of enforcement actions. 17  Connors v....

...The Association moves for attorney’s fees on three grounds: (1) Article 14.01(A) of the Declaration, which states that “any judgment rendered in any action or proceeding to enforce this Declaration or the Bylaws shall include a sum for attorney’s fees”; (2) section 720.305(1), Florida Statutes, (2017), which states that “[t]he prevailing party in any such litigation [to enforce the governing documents] is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and costs”; and (3) FHA section 3613(c)(2), which states that “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ....

...to the Suarezes’ FHA counterclaim, and she did not individually assert any claims under the Declaration or Chapter 720. Because we affirm the injunction in the Association’s favor, the Association is entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees under the Declaration and section 720.305(1) for time spent in this appeal related to its own state law claim for injunctive relief to enforce the governing documents. A more onerous showing is required to award attorney’s fees in favor of a defendant prevailing on a claim of an FHA violation....

...this point, and nothing in this record, demonstrates that the Suarezes’ FHA counterclaim was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. We therefore grant the Association’s motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Declaration and section 720.305(1) for time spent on those issues in this appeal....