self-help | Rembaum's Association Roundup

December 1, 2025January 6, 2026

Does the Association Need to Exercise Self-Help Options Before Taking Legal Action?

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 2^nd District Court of Appeal (DCA) and Florida’s 6^th 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 2^nd DCA and 6^th 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 4^th 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. 4^th DCA August 27, 2025), the 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th DCA even points to a 2006 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 4^th 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 4^th DCA recognized its decision is in direct conflict with both the 2^nd DCA and the 6^th 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 4^th 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 2^nd DCA and the 6^th 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 1^stDCA, 3^rd DCA, or 5^th 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 2^nd DCA is comprised of Pinellas, Pasco, DeSoto, Manatee, Sarasota, and Hillsborough Counties.T
  - he 6^th 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 4^th DCA is comprised of Palm Beach, Broward, St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, and Okeechobee Counties.

3} Undecided:

- - The 1^st DCA is comprised of Escambia, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, Franklin, Gadsden, Jefferson, Leon, and Wakulla Counties.
  - The 3^rd DCA is comprised of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Levy, Marion, Putnam, St. Johns, Suwannee, Taylor, Union, and Volusia Counties.
  - The 5^th 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.

November 3, 2023November 11, 2023

Is It Time to Consider Removing an Association’s Right of Self-Help to Cure an Owner’s Violation from the Declaration?

Through the years Florida’s community associations have relied upon the court decisions that had routinely agreed that the provisions of Florida Statutes that expressly authorize an association to entitlement to an injunction (i.e., a judicial order requiring a person to take action) superseded the common law standard of the requirement that there be no adequate remedy at law before a party could seek an injunction. In other words, an association could pursue injunctive relief and seek a court order to force an owner to wash their dirty roof even if the governing documents also permitted the association to enter upon the lot and cure the maintenance violation by cleaning the roof (this remedy is often called “self-help”).

However, due to rulings from both the 2nd District Court of Appeals in April 2022 and now the 6th District Court of Appeals in August 2023, that may no longer be the case. As you may recall, the April 2022 appellate case requiring a community association to first exhaust its permissive right to use “self-help” and cure an owner violation of the covenants before seeking an injunction was addressed in the May 2023 edition of the Florida Community Association Journal and can be found online at www.KBRlegal.com within Rembaum’s Association Roundup’s past articles.

This second appellate case, in August 2023, was decided in favor of the homeowner who failed to maintain their property, leading the association to seek an injunction from the court in an effort to compel the homeowner to comply with the provisions of the declaration. In this case, the declaration provided the board of directors the choice of i) “self-help” for the association to enter upon the lot to cure the maintenance violation, or ii) seeking an injunction from the court to compel the owner to maintain their property. Considering this particular litigation went on for 10 years, the attorney fees and costs likely to be assessed against the association could end up costing significantly more than if the association had fixed up the property in the first place. However, historically courts would grant injunctions in favor of associations to compel property owners to comply with the terms of the declaration when the clear language of the covenants provided the board a choice, to self-help or to seek an injunction. Therefore, it is critical for every board member and manager to understand why this is so.

There is a long-standing, legal common law principle that stands for the proposition that when a party has an adequate remedy at law, it must be fully and completely exhausted before such party can seek an equitable remedy, such as an injunction. In the recent appellate case from August 2023 (McConico v. Morgans Mill Property Owners Association, Inc., Case no., 6D23–1213) the association sought an injunction against the homeowner because the homeowner failed to maintain her property in a neat and attractive manner. The declaration even had the following provisions:

The owner of each lot shall maintain the exterior of the residence in the lot at all times and maintain it in a neat and attractive manner and as provided elsewhere herein. Upon the owner’s failure to do so, the association may have its option, after giving the owner written notice for a period of 30 days, to… perform such reasonable maintenance and make such repairs, as may be required and deemed necessary to restore the neat and attractive appearance of the lot and the exterior of the residence located thereon. The cost of any of the work performed by the association upon the owner’s failure to do so shall be immediately due and owing from the owner of the lot and shall constitute an individual assessment against the lot on which of the work was performed, collectible in a lump sum, and secured by the lien against the lot as herein provided.

Rather than take advantage of the “self-help” remedy contained in the declaration and thus assume the initial cost and expense, the board instead relied on section 720.305, Fla. Stat., which authorizes at law or an equity, or both, an association to bring an action in court (once the pre-suit mediation process has been utilized) to address the alleged failure by an owner to comply with the requirements of chapter 720 F.S. or the governing documents of the association. In fact the trial court agreed with the association, and in the final judgment found that the owner “failed to maintain her lawn and landscaping, exterior of the home and her driveway as required by the declaration…” Based on such finding, the trial court ordered the homeowner to clean, maintain, and repair the various aspects of her property.

However, the appellate court strongly disagreed with the trial court decision and applied the following long-standing principal:

…in order to establish entitlement to a mandatory injunction, there must be a clear legal right which has been violated, irreparable harm must be threatened, and there must be lack of an adequate remedy at law….

The appellate court determined that because the owner correctly argued that since the declaration provided the association the option of using “self-help” and performing the necessary maintenance and repairs at the association’s initial expense, the association had an adequate remedy at law, which needed to be exhausted before seeking an injunction.

It is interesting to note that, in the dicta of this case (which is not binding, but just a persuasive authority), the appellate court makes mention that had the association attempted to perform such a maintenance and the owner acted to prevent the association from entering the property, then seeking the injunction may have been proper. But that is not what happened, and therefore the appellate court ordered that “…it was error for the trial court to resort to equity and enter a mandatory injunction…”.

Based on this appellate ruling, the important question is, what is an association to do when it has a permissive but not mandatory ability to remedy a homeowner’s non-compliance by using “self-help” to enter upon the lot and cure the owner’s violation? In this instance the association will need to strongly consider an attempt to fix the problem first before seeking the injunction, or perhaps the better answer is to consider completely removing the “self-help” provision from the declaration.

Please be sure to discuss these extremely important cases with legal counsel familiar with community association law before seeking an injunction to compel an owner to maintain their property, most especially when your association‘s declaration provides for any type of “self-help” remedy. If not, then the association could end up spending significant fees in an effort to seek an injunction only to be stymied in such effort, which could also result in the association being responsible for the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the owner if such owner is the prevailing party in the legal action.

(Written by Jeffrey Rembaum (Kaye Bender Rebaum) and reprinted with permission from the November 2023 edition of the “Florida Community Association Journal“.)

February 3, 2023January 6, 2026

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self-Help

Architectural Committees Formal Procedures, Published Standards, and Self Help

Formal Procedures

There are strict legal requirements that a homeowners’ association’s (HOA) architectural review committee (ARC) must follow, most especially if the ARC intends to deny an owner’s request. As this author has witnessed countless times, it is likely that many ARCs do not conduct their activities in conformity with Florida law such that an ARC denial may not withstand judicial scrutiny. If these legal requirements are not followed, and the ARC denies the owner’s architectural request, then it would be quite easy for the owner to challenge the ARC’s decision and prevail. Upon prevailing, the owner would be entitled to their prevailing party attorney’s fees and costs, as well. It is so easy to avoid this outcome, yet so few associations take the time to do it right.

Pursuant to §720.303(2), Florida Statutes, a meeting of the ARC is required to be open and noticed in the same manner as a meeting of the association’s board of directors. Notice of the ARC meeting must be posted in a conspicuous place in the community at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting, and the meeting must be open for all members to attend. Further, pursuant to §720.303(2)(c)(3), Florida Statutes, members of the ARC are not permitted to vote by proxy or secret ballot. Also, bare bone minutes should be taken to create a record of ARC decisions—especially denials.

We often hear from many HOAs that the ARC does not meet openly and does not notice their meetings. This leaves decisions made by the ARC vulnerable to challenge. If the ARC denies an application but fails to do so at a properly noticed board meeting, the owner can challenge the denial, claiming that it is not valid because the ARC did not follow proper procedure. In such cases, the ARC’s denial of an application is not valid because the ARC failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the meeting even if an application violates the declaration or other association-adopted architectural standards. However, by complying with the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, your HOA can work to avoid this debacle.

Published Standards

Often a top priority for an HOA is ensuring that homes in the community maintain a harmonious architectural scheme in conformity with community standards and guidelines, and because the ARC is at the frontline of owners’ alterations and improvements to their homes, it is instrumental in ensuring that the community standards and guidelines are met. Pursuant to §720.3035(1), Florida Statutes, an HOA, or the ARC, “has the authority to review and approve plans and specifications only to the extent that the authority is specifically stated or reasonably inferred as to location, size, type, or appearance in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards.” But not every owner request is typically addressed in the declaration or other published guidelines and standards. If not, then the association may not be in a good position for proper denial. Therefore, the ARC is only as effective as the objective guidelines and standards (set forth in the declaration and other published guidelines and standards) are inclusive. So, what is the association to do when the ARC receives an owner’s application for an alteration to the home, but the association does not have any architectural guidelines or standards regulating the requested alteration?

While not court tested yet, a possible solution for this conundrum is to include a “catch-all” provision in the declaration to proactively address those ARC applications where a member may request a modification that is not directly addressed by the governing documents. Such a “catch-all” provision stands for the proposition that, if such a request is made, then the existing state of the community is the applicable standard by which the ARC application is to be judged. For example, imagine if an owner applies to the ARC to paint the owner’s house pink. If there are no architectural guidelines or standards that address what color a house must be, and there are no pink houses in the community, then the existing state of the community may provide a lawful basis for the ARC to deny the request because there are no existing pink houses in the community.

The Trouble With Self-Help Provisions

What if an owner refuses to maintain the owner’s property, such as pressure washing a dirty roof, despite the HOA sending demand letters, levying a fine, and perhaps even suspending the owner’s right to use the HOA’s recreational facilities? What is the HOA’s next step? Is it time to file a lawsuit to compel compliance? Well, Chapter 718 (governing condominiums), Chapter 719 (governing cooperatives), and Chapter 720 (governing HOAs) of the Florida Statutes authorize the association to bring an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of the declaration against the owner. Additionally, many declarations contain “self-help” language that authorizes the association to cure a violation on behalf of the owner and even, at times, assess the owner for the costs of doing so. These “self-help” provisions generally contain permissive language, meaning the association, may, but is not obligated to, cure the violation. Sadly, in this instance the word “may” means “shall,” and to find out why, read on.

There is a general legal principal that, if a claimant has a remedy at law (e.g., the ability to recover money damages under a contract), then it lacks the legal basis to pursue a remedy in equity (e.g., an action for injunctive relief). Remember, too, that an association’s declaration is a contract. In the context of an association, the legal remedy would be exercising the “self-help” authority granted in the declaration. An equitable remedy would be bringing an action seeking an injunction to compel an owner to take action to comply with the declaration. Generally, a court will only award an equitable remedy when the legal remedy is unavailable, insufficient, or inadequate.

Assume that the association’s declaration contains both the permissive “self-help” remedy and the right to seek an injunction from the court. Accordingly, it would appear the association has a decision to make—go to court to seek the injunction or enter onto the owner’s property, cure the violation, and assess the costs of same to the owner. However, recent Florida case law affirmed a complication to what should be a simple decision. In two cases decided ten years apart, Alorda v. Sutton Place Homeowners Association, Inc., 82 So.3d 1077 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2012) and Mauriello v. Property Owners Association of Lake Parker Estates, Inc., 337 So.3d 484 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2022), Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal decided that an association did not have the right to seek an injunction to compel an owner to comply with the declaration if the declaration provided the association the authority, but not the obligation, to engage in “self-help” to remedy the violation. Expressed simply, this is because the legal contractually based “self-help” remedy must be employed before one can rely upon equitable remedy of an injunction. Therefore, even though the declaration provided for an optional remedy of “self-help,” it must be used before seeking the equitable remedy of an injunction.

In Alorda, the owners failed to provide the association with proof of insurance required by the declaration. Although the declaration allowed the association to obtain the required insurance, the association filed a complaint against the owners seeking injunctive relief, asking the court to enter a permanent mandatory injunction requiring the owners to obtain the requested insurance. The owners successfully argued that even though they violated the declaration, the equitable remedy of an injunction was not available because the association already had an adequate legal remedy—the “self-help” option of purchasing the required insurance and assessing them for same. The Court agreed.

In Mauriello, the declaration contained similar language as in Alorda but involved the issue of the owners failing to keep their lawn and landscaping in good condition as required by the declaration. The association filed a complaint seeking a mandatory injunction ordering the owners to keep their lawn and landscaping in a neat condition. However, the facts were complicated by the sale of the home in the middle of the suit when the new owners voluntarily brought the home into compliance with the declaration. The parties continued to fight over who was entitled to prevailing party attorney’s fees with the association arguing it was entitled to same because the voluntary compliance was only obtained after the association was forced to commence legal action. The owners, citing Alorda, argued that the complaint should have been dismissed at the onset because the association sought an equitable remedy (injunction) when a legal remedy was already available—the exercise of its “self-help” authority. The Court considered the award of attorney’s fees after the dismissal of the association’s action for an injunction. Ultimately, the Court held that the owners were the prevailing party as the association could not seek the injunction because it already had an adequate remedy at law.

Accordingly, if your association’s declaration contains a “self-help” provision, and your association desires to seek an injunction against an owner rather than pursue “self-help,” the board should discuss the issue in greater detail with the association’s legal counsel prior to proceeding. Also, remember that if the association wants to enforce architectural standards, then they must be published to the membership; and always remember to notice ARC meetings and take minutes.

(Reprinted with permission from the February 2023 edition of the “Florida Community Association Journal”.)