Zeskind v. Jockey Club Condominium Apartments, Unit No. II, Inc.

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Before SCHWARTZ; PER CURIAM
• Citation: Zeskind v. Jockey Club Condominium Apartments, Unit No. II, Inc., 468 So.2d 1021, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1046 (Fla. App. 1985)
• Decision Date: 23 April 1985
• Docket Number: Nos. 84-1461,84-2067,s. 84-1461
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1046 Stanley ZESKIND and Shirley Zeskind, his wife, Appellants, v. JOCKEY CLUB CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, UNIT NO. II, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellee.

Page 1021

468 So.2d 1021

10 Fla. L. Weekly 1046

Stanley ZESKIND and Shirley Zeskind, his wife, Appellants, v. JOCKEY CLUB CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, UNIT NO. II, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit, Appellee.

Nos. 84-1461, 84-2067.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

April 23, 1985.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1985.

Ann Mason Parker, Leonard Sussman, Miami, for appellants.

Stanley Angel and Cheryl D. Hochberg, North Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Stanley and Shirley Zeskind [Zeskinds], condominium unit owners, appeal an adverse final judgment entered in favor of Jockey Club Condominium Apartments, Unit No. II, Inc., [Jockey Club], a condominium association, after a non-jury trial below. In the final judgment, the Jockey Club secured an injunction which restrains the Zeskinds from keeping a pet in their condominium unit in violation of the no-pet rule of the Declaration of Condominium; the final judgment also denied a six-count counterclaim filed by the Zeskinds in the cause.

The Zeskinds assert as error on appeal the grant of the above injunction, the denial of a portion of their counterclaim and the award of attorney's fees. We reject these contentions as no error has been demonstrated, in our view, sufficient to upset the judgment appealed from. We reach this result for two reasons.

First, both the injunction and the award of attorney's fees are based on substantial, competent evidence adduced below which we have no authority to disturb on appeal. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976); Koeppel v. Koeppel, 351 So.2d 766, 768 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Second, the denial of...