Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Spring Hill Civic Ass'n v. Richard
Citations: 526 So. 2d 211; 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1376; 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2378; 1988 WL 57431Docket: No. 87-1544
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 9, 1988; Florida; State Appellate Court
An appeal was taken from a summary judgment concerning deed restrictions in the Spring Hill subdivision. The appellant is responsible for enforcing deed restrictions regarding the construction of homes. Appellees began constructing a modular home without submitting their plans for approval, which is required by the deed restrictions. These restrictions stipulate that no building can be erected or altered without prior written approval from a designated committee regarding design conformity and structural integrity. If the committee does not act within thirty days, approval is not necessary, provided the design aligns with existing structures. The trial court ruled against the appellant, stating that appellees were not required to submit their plans due to an unauthorized $25 fee for the review process, making submission pointless. The appellate court disagreed, indicating that the appellees must submit their plans for approval, independent of the fee issue. If the committee fails to respond within thirty days, the appellees can proceed with construction; if denied, they may seek legal recourse. The lower court should have disregarded the fee issue and mandated the submission of plans. The appellate court ordered a trial to allow both parties to present evidence regarding the conformity of the building with the deed restrictions. The outcome will depend on whether the committee's approval was unreasonably withheld or if the design indeed does not conform to existing structures. The summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. One judge concurred, while another dissented without elaboration.