## Facts

- A condominium declaration prohibited animals except one dog or cat weighing 25 pounds or less, and required any permitted pet to be carried between the unit and outdoors.
- Two unit owners kept a dog that grew beyond 25 pounds and later acquired another large dog.
- The owners allowed the dogs to run through the condominium, frightening residents and creating a nuisance.
- The condominium association sent multiple letters requesting and then demanding compliance with the pet restriction.
- The owners refused to comply, and the association sued for injunctive relief to enforce the declaration.
- In their answer, the owners admitted the material factual allegations but disputed irreparable harm, adequacy of legal remedies, and attorney’s fees.
- The owners counterclaimed that the association selectively and arbitrarily enforced the restriction against them.

## Issues

1. Whether a private condominium association must provide constitutional procedural due process (notice and a hearing) before seeking judicial enforcement of a valid declaration restriction.
2. Whether a court may deny injunctive enforcement of an admitted violation of a valid declaration restriction based on perceived due-process deficiencies in the association’s pre-suit actions.
3. Whether the owners were entitled to judgment and attorney’s fees where the restriction was valid and selective enforcement was not proven.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for the unit owners.
- The court held the pet restriction was valid and enforceable, and the association was entitled to injunctive relief.
- The court rejected the trial court’s reliance on constitutional due process as a bar to enforcement.
- The award of attorney’s fees to the owners was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Condominium declaration restrictions that are facially valid and reasonably applied are subject to judicial enforcement by injunction.
- Constitutional procedural due process protections generally require state action; a private association’s enforcement of a declaration between private parties does not, without more, constitute state action.
- A unit owner receives notice and an opportunity to be heard through the judicial process when the association files suit and the owner can answer, contest, and assert defenses and counterclaims.
- Absent proof of arbitrary or selective enforcement, a court lacks an equitable basis to refuse enforcement of an admitted violation of a valid declaration restriction.

## Conclusion

A condominium association may obtain an injunction enforcing a valid pet restriction against unit owners who admit the violation where selective enforcement is rejected, and constitutional due process does not preclude enforcement absent state action, particularly when the owners have a full opportunity to be heard in the lawsuit.


Majestic View Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Bolotin, 429 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1983)