Spey v. Hayes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spey v. Hayes

440 So. 2d 599, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23570

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 1983

DocketNo. AN-290

StatusPublished

This text of 440 So. 2d 599 (Spey v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spey v. Hayes, 440 So. 2d 599, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23570 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal and cross-appeal from a final order of the trial judge on remand. In Spey v. Hayes, 406 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this court remanded for determination of the relief to be afforded appellants in a suit seeking a mandatory injunction to require removal of improvements allegedly constructed in violation of the Santa Rosa Island Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Noting that “something less than the destruction of the improvements can be required and a reasonable time for conversion to permitted uses allowed,” this court left the determination of the relief to be afforded appellants to the discretion of the trial judge, after taking into account the factual matters and equitable considerations involved.

Since no abuse of discretion by the trial judge requiring reversal has been shown, we affirm his finding that the plans submitted by the property owner, as modified by the trial court, will bring the subject property into compliance with the restrictive covenants and this court’s opinion. Cross-appellants’ assertions of error are without merit. The order is affirmed without prejudice to appellees’ right to seek waiver or modification of the covenants in question, with the written consent of the majority of the lessees of the lots in the area, under the terms of the covenants.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal and cross-appeal from a final order of the trial judge on remand. In Spey v. Hayes, 406 So.2d 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this court remanded for determination of the relief to be afforded appellants in a suit seeking a mandatory injunction to require removal of improvements allegedly constructed in violation of the Santa Rosa Island Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Noting that “something less than the destruction of the improvements can be required and a reasonable time for conversion to permitted uses allowed,” this court left the determination of the relief to be afforded appellants to the discretion of the trial judge, after taking into account the factual matters and equitable considerations involved.

Since no abuse of discretion by the trial judge requiring reversal has been shown, we affirm his finding that the plans submitted by the property owner, as modified by the trial court, will bring the subject property into compliance with the restrictive covenants and this court’s opinion. Cross-appellants’ assertions of error are without merit. The order is affirmed without prejudice to appellees’ right to seek waiver or modification of the covenants in question, with the written consent of the majority of the lessees of the lots in the area, under the terms of the covenants.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 599, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spey-v-hayes-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack