## Facts

- William and Judith Ladner owned a unit in the Plaza Del Prado Condominium, which was subject to a recorded declaration, bylaws, and restrictions requiring uniform terrace railings and prior approval for changes.
- After acquiring their unit, the Ladners installed a terrace railing that was not uniform (including differences in appearance and color) and did so without first obtaining approval required by the condominium documents.
- The condominium association later became responsible for enforcing the terrace-railing restrictions, taking over from the developer.
- Before the association assumed enforcement responsibility, the developer had been lax and had granted permission to some unit owners to alter their terrace railings; those earlier altered railings remained in place.
- At the final hearing, the trial court found that once the association took over enforcement, it applied the terrace-railing rules consistently for new violations and allowed only the previously permitted, developer-era alterations to remain.
- The association sued the Ladners to enforce the restriction and to require restoration of the nonconforming railing to the original condition.
- The trial court entered a final judgment ordering the Ladners to restore their terrace railing to comply with the condominium restrictions.
- The Ladners appealed, arguing (1) the association’s suit was selective and arbitrary because other nonconforming railings remained, and (2) a prior interlocutory appeal concerning a temporary mandatory injunction had already determined selective enforcement.
- In the earlier interlocutory appeal, the Third District had reversed a preliminary injunction (Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 384 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)) for lack of irreparable harm and included language stating that ordering removal “constitutes selective enforcement.”

## Issues

1. Did the earlier interlocutory opinion’s statement that enforcement “constitutes selective enforcement” bind the trial court and the appellate court as law of the case in the later appeal from final judgment?
2. On the full record after trial, did enforcing the uniform-terrace-railing restriction against the Ladners, while earlier developer-approved nonconforming railings remained, amount to impermissible selective or arbitrary enforcement?

## Decision

- The court held that the prior interlocutory opinion’s statement about selective enforcement was obiter dictum because it was unnecessary to the narrow preliminary-injunction question; it therefore had no binding effect as law of the case.
- The court affirmed the final judgment requiring the Ladners to restore their terrace railing to its original, uniform condition.
- The court concluded that the association’s enforcement was not impermissibly selective where the evidence supported that, after the association assumed enforcement authority, it applied the restriction evenhandedly to new violations while preexisting developer-permitted changes remained.

## Legal Principles

- Law of the case applies only to legal questions that were actually decided and necessary to the prior appellate ruling; statements not necessary to the result are dicta and do not control later proceedings.
- An appeal from a preliminary injunction is limited to whether the movant showed a basis for temporary relief (including irreparable harm); it does not automatically resolve the ultimate merits of the dispute.
- A condominium association generally must enforce restrictions in a non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory manner, but it may enforce a restriction going forward even if earlier nonconforming conditions exist due to prior developer control or prior permission.
- A consistent policy of requiring compliance for new violations, while leaving in place earlier deviations that the association cannot realistically or legally remedy, does not by itself establish selective enforcement.
- Unit owners who take title subject to recorded condominium documents are bound by the restrictions, and courts may order restoration of nonconforming alterations when a violation is proven.

## Conclusion

The Third District affirmed a final judgment ordering the Ladners to restore a nonuniform, unapproved terrace railing, holding that the earlier preliminary-injunction appeal’s selective-enforcement language was dicta rather than law of the case and that the association’s consistent enforcement against post-turnover violations was not arbitrary merely because developer-permitted prior alterations remained.


Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So. 2d 927 (1983)