An Ever-Changing Situation
In two previous articles – “Violation Remedies: Self-Help vs. Injunction | Which to Use” published in June 2022 and “Is It Time to Consider Removing an Association’s Right of Self-Help to Cure an Owner’s Violation from the Declaration?” published in November 2023 – the Roundup reported on appellate cases addressing the right of homeowners’ associations to seek an injunction against an owner for violations of the declaration as compared against the need to first seek a self-help remedy when also authorized by the declaration. Both articles discussed recent appellate cases from Florida’s 2nd District Court of Appeal (DCA) and Florida’s 6th DCA. These cases held, in short, that if the declaration provides that an association may seek an injunction for a court order against a noncomplying owner and also includes the association’s right of self-help to cure the violation, the remedy of self-help must be employed before the association can seek an injunction ordering the noncomplying owner to cure the violation.
For example, if an owner fails to maintain their yard and the declaration provides the association with the remedies of self-help and seeking a court ordered injunction to compel the owner to cure the violation, both the 2nd DCA and 6th DCA held that the association must at least try to exercise self-help to cure the violation as an adequate remedy at law before seeking an injunction. This is because of the long-established, important principal that all legal remedies (i.e., contractual remedies) must be exhausted before an equitable remedy (meaning, “judge make the owner do the right thing”) can be sought from the court.
To put all this together, the declaration is a contact between the owner and the association and if such contract provides the right of the association to enter the lot to cure the landscaping violations, but not the obligation to do so, then such permissive and nonobligatory right is still a legal remedy, and therefore, it must be used before an association can seek the equitable remedy of an injunction from the court. But, like many rules, there are exceptions. Remember, “i” before “e” except after “c”? Few bodies of law have more exceptions than that of community association law and for good reason too!
In August 2025, Florida’s 4th DCA recognized the long-standing decisional exception that allows a homeowners’ association to seek the equitable remedy of an injunction without having to first use, or even to at least try to use, the legal remedy of self-help where both remedies are set out in the declaration of covenants. In Mooney v. Color Le Palais of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. 4D2024-0967 & 2024-2082 (Fla. 4th DCA August 27, 2025), the 4th DCA affirmed the trial court’s reasoning that the association was not required to establish irreparable harm or inadequate remedy at law before seeking an injunction. The Court recognized that traditionally when seeking an injunction a party must have (i) a clear right, (ii) irreparable harm, and (iii) no adequate remedy at law. However, violations of restrictive covenants on real estate (i.e., a declaration of covenants) have a long-justified departure from this general rule. The 4th DCA points to a 1927 Florida Supreme Court case, Stephl v. Moore, 114 So. 255 (Fla. 1927) which provided that, “a violation of covenants amounts to an irreparable injury… appropriate allegations showing a violation or quasi violation of the covenants is sufficient.” The 4th DCA even points to a 2006 2nd DCA case, Autozone Sores, Inc. v. Ne. Plaza Venture, LLC, 934 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA2006) – where current Florida Supreme Court Justice Canady was then-serving on the 2nd DCA – which provides that “Florida law has long recognized that injunctive relief is available to remedy a violation of a restrictive covenant without a showing that the violation caused an irreparable injury, that is an injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Therefore, it logically follows that when a breach of the declaration of covenants is concerned, the association need not first try to cure the violation by utilizing self-help before seeking an injunction from the court to compel the owner to adhere to the covenants.” In other words, while it is typically required to first exhaust all legal remedies which may exist under a contract before seeking an equitable remedy from the courts, this is not applicable in the context of the enforcement of covenants recorded against real property, such as a declaration of covenants for a homeowners’ association.
The 4th DCA even recognized that §720.305(1), Fla. Stat., provides for equitable relief, even when there is a remedy at law also available. More specifically, §720.305(1), Fla. Stat., provides in relevant part that, “actions at law or in equity, or both, to redress alleged failure or refusal to comply with these provisions may be brought by the association or by any member…” The Court notes that, “by using the phrase ‘or both’ that §720.305(1) Fla. Stat., 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. The statute does not limit the availability of equitable relief to situations where legal remedies are inadequate.”
In rendering its opinion, the 4th DCA recognized its decision is in direct conflict with both the 2nd DCA and the 6th DCA, which both previously held that legal remedies must be exhausted before seeking equitable relief, such as an injunction, from the courts and thus certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court for a final determination. Until then, where are we?
If the homeowners’ association is within the territory of the 4th DCA, then the association can seek an injunction against an owner without having to first employ the legal remedy of self-help as may be set out in the declaration. Meanwhile, the homeowners’ associations within jurisdiction of the 2nd DCA and the 6th DCA must exhaust all legal remedies, such as self-help if set out in the declaration, before seeking an injunction from the courts. If the homeowners’ association is located with the 1st DCA, 3rd DCA, or 5th DCA, then whether the association should first exhaust all legal remedies, such as self-help if set out in the declaration, before seeking a court ordered injunction is anything but clear, and such associations will absolutely need good counsel from the association’s attorney.
In case you are wondering which DCA your county is in, refer to the following list:
1} Must exhaust self-help and all other legal remedies before seeking an injunction
- The 2nd DCA is comprised of Pinellas, Pasco, DeSoto, Manatee, Sarasota, and Hillsborough Counties.T
- he 6th DCA is comprised of Orange, Osceola, Hardee, Highlands, Polk, Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry, and Lee Counties.
2} Can use self-help or seek an injunction:
- The 4th DCA is comprised of Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties.
3} Undecided:
- The 1st DCA is comprised of Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, and Wakulla Counties.
- The 3rd DCA is comprised of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Levy, Marion, Putnam, St. Johns, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, and Volusia Counties.
- The 5th DCA is comprised of Bay, Calhoun, Holmes, Jackson, and Washington Counties and all other counties in the Northwest Florida region.
Due to the ever-changing landscape of this important remedy, whether self-help as authorized by the declaration should be utilized before seeking an injunction from the court to order a member to comply with the terms of the declaration, or not, should be fully discussed with the association’s attorney.