Enforcing Restrictive Covenants and Not Needing to Prove Irreperable Harm
To pursue an injunction, a party needs to satisfy the following four elements: “(1) a clear legal right; (2) irreparable harm; (3) no adequate remedy at law; (4) consideration of the public interest.” Mooney v. Color Le Palais of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association, Inc., 50 Fla.L.Weekly D1912a (Fla. 4th DCA 2025). When a party moves to enforce a restrictive covenant, they do so through injunctive relief. However, when it comes to a restrictive covenant, a party does not need to prove that there was irreparable harm or that there was no adequate remedy at law – elements 2 and 3. See Mooney, supra.
“Florida courts have held that the rule excusing proof of irreparable harm also avoids the need for the party seeking to enforce a restrictive covenant to demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy at law.”
The rationale … in restrictive covenant cases is that “[t]he value of a restrictive covenant . . . is often difficult to quantify and may be impossible to replace.”
“[T]o enforce a restrictive covenant, one need not show that the violation thereof amounts to an irreparable injury . . . the breach itself is sufficient ground for interference by injunction.” A party seeking an injunction to prevent the violation of a restrictive covenant establishes a prima facie case by presenting evidence showing the violation.”
Mooney, supra (citations omitted).
Mooney dealt with enforcing a homeowner’s maintenance of his lawn. The Declaration gave the Association a self-help remedy at the homeowner’s expense if the homeowner failed to comply with the lawn covenant. The Association argued that the restrictive covenant was inapplicable because the Association had an adequate remedy at law, that being the self-help remedy afforded to him in the Declaration. In doing so, the homeowner relied on other Florida decisions that found the self-help remedy defeated the injunctive relief because the Association had an adequate remedy at law. The Fourth District Court of Appeals disagreed with such cases holding that self-help is not the exclusive remedy when the injunctive relief is a safer way to remedy a covenant violation. It further held that self-help is not an adequate remedy at law:
Here, self-help would have required the Association to embark on a substantial horticultural project on the Homeowners’ property against the Homeowners’ wishes. There was a risk that the project could have degenerated into a breach of the peace. There was a risk that the Homeowners’ property could have been damaged. The parties would have had to litigate the reasonableness of the cost of the Association’s project. The Homeowners could have challenged the existence of a violation after the self-help had taken place. Failure to reimburse the Association for the project would have allowed the Association to foreclose its lien. The complications that self-help could generate in this case renders the remedy inadequate.
In contrast, where an injunction compels a homeowner to bring his property into compliance, the homeowner can choose how much he wants to spend to do so. An injunction may be enforced through a contempt proceeding. An injunction is the more efficient and complete remedy in this case.
The self-help remedy is a legal tightrope suspended over substantial legal risks. There is no reason to elevate the self-help remedy in chapter 720 litigation to exalted status, at the expense of long-settled law. “By making equitable remedies available for chapter 720 rule violations, the legislature determined that it was in the public interest to resolve homeowners’ disputes by mediation or in lawsuits at the courthouse, using equitable or other legal remedies, not by self-help, which would turn Florida into the wild west with a proliferation of stand-your-ground scenarios.”
Mooney, supra.
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
