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.
Hernstadt v. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass'n
Citations: 560 So. 2d 1227; 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2236; 1990 WL 37425Docket: No. 88-2583
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; April 3, 1990; Florida; State Appellate Court
William and Judith Hernstadt appeal a final judgment favoring Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. following a remand from a previous appeal, which reversed an earlier ruling in favor of the Hernstadts. The Hernstadts had converted a structure on their condominium roof without necessary approvals, leading the Association to seek a mandatory injunction to stop their use of the renovated area, along with damages. Initially, the trial court ruled for the Hernstadts based on estoppel, granting them a declaratory judgment and damages, subject to offsets for unpaid assessments. Upon appeal, the court reversed the initial judgment, instructing that a judgment be entered for the Association, affirming the cross-appeal regarding other issues. On remand, the trial court instructed the Hernstadts to cease using the roof structure, reserved jurisdiction for potential damages, and awarded damages for unpaid assessments. The Hernstadts argue that the remand only pertained to their declaratory judgment action and not the Association's counterclaim. This argument is rejected; the appellate court found the trial court's interpretation of the mandate appropriate and consistent with the appellate court's instructions. The primary appeal issue revolved around whether waiver and estoppel barred the Association from enforcing the condominium's Declaration terms. The Hernstadts also claimed due process violations, asserting they were not given notice or a chance to be heard regarding the relief granted to the Association. The court ruled this claim unfounded, noting that the original trial included a thorough examination of both parties' claims, and the subsequent judgment aligned with the appellate court's findings and the Association's counterclaim. The trial court's actions were deemed compliant with due process, leading to an affirmation of the final judgment.