Holiday Pines Property Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Wetherington, 89-2202

• Decision Date: 07 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-2202,89-2202
• Citation: 557 So.2d 243
• Parties: 15 Fla. L. Weekly D631 HOLIDAY PINES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellant, v. Ralph WETHERINGTON and Gloria Wetherington, his wife; Mortimer Hanley and Jane Hanley, his wife; Alex Rowen and Theresa Rowen, his wife; and Gus Gerakaris and Mary Gerakaris, his wife, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 243

557 So.2d 243

15 Fla. L. Weekly D631

HOLIDAY PINES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellant, v. Ralph WETHERINGTON and Gloria Wetherington, his wife; Mortimer Hanley and Jane Hanley, his wife; Alex Rowen and Theresa Rowen, his wife; and Gus Gerakaris and Mary Gerakaris, his wife, individually, and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Appellees.

No. 89-2202.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

March 7, 1990.

Dixon Thomas, Vero Beach, for appellant.

Richard D. Sneed, Jr., of Law Offices of Richard D. Sneed, Jr., P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellees.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for rehearing, withdraw the opinion filed on January 10, 1990, and substitute the following:

A trial court order determined class representation and certified the class in an action by certain homeowners against a homeowners' association. We hold that such an order is not reviewable and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

It is true that we held to the contrary in Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 385 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Maner Properties Inc. v. Siksay, 489 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). However, the Kohl decision was criticized by our supreme court in National Lake Developments, Inc. v. Lake Tippecanoe Owners Association, Inc., 417 So.2d 655 (Fla.1982), and we are bound by the dictates of our supreme court. It is also true that our Siksay decision was decided after Lake Tippecanoe, but plainly Siksay was at odds with our supreme court and, therefore, inappropriate. See also General Development Corporation v. Stanislaus, 544 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Accordingly, this portion of the appeal is dismissed.

The homeowners' association also appeals that part of the order granting a temporary injunction. We reverse.

The order in question also enjoined the association from making certain amendments to its bylaws in the form of new covenants and restrictions. The association was not precluded from holding meetings, issuing newsletters, and amending any bylaws which did not involve the enforcement of the covenants and restrictions enjoined by the order and "which actions or involvement do not attempt to prejudge this case."

The association here seeks reversal of the injunction and we agree it should be reversed.

We begin by enumerating the four predicates for a temporary injunction:

1) Irreparable harm.

2) Inadequate remedy at law.

3) Clear legal right to the relief requested.

4) A temporary injunction would serve the public interest.

Stiller v. Mariner Cay Property Owners Association, Inc., 513 So.2d 798 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

The association strongly urges that this court's opinion in Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 212 So.2d 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968), mandates a reversal of the injunction. In that case, Greyhound filed a complaint against Tamiami Trail Tours seeking to prevent Tamiami from operating its bus service over a portion of the turnpike. The complaint alleged that Greyhound had certificated authority to operate over the turnpike and Tamiami did not, and it sought a temporary injunction. This court reversed the trial court's granting of the injunction:

The general function of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo until full relief can be granted following a final hearing. It is conceded by Greyhound that Tamiami has operated over the turnpike between Fort Lauderdale and Orlando for some three years. Thus, the effect of the injunction was to disturb rather than preserve the status quo.

Here, the disputed covenants went into effect in July, 1988, replacing the ones voted upon in 1983. The amended complaint was not filed...