Injunction against condo owner illustrates just how ugly things can get
Daily Business Review
By Michael L. Hyman
06 June 2017
The old adage “don’t let one bad apple spoil the bunch” definitely
applies in community association living. Unfortunately, conflicts
between boards of directors and recalcitrant unit owners are par for
the course in associations, so it is incumbent on the boards and their
property management and legal counsel to deftly contend with every
brouhaha that arises in order to help maintain peace and harmony.
A ruling in Broward County Court last year illustrates the challenges
of dealing with unruly unit owners, who in some cases pose a threat of
physical harm to board members and neighbors. The judgment came in the
case of Oriole Gardens Condominium Two Association v. Gonzalez, and it
awarded an injunction against the unit owners to the association for
the 55-and-over community.
The association alleged that the defendants violated key provisions in
the community’s declaration by threatening and disturbing other
residents with their aggressive actions. In fact, one unit owner sought
a restraining order against Juan Gonzalez, whose conduct ultimately
resulted in his arrest for domestic violence and resisting an officer.
The association alleged that this sort of conduct had been going on for
several years, but it had escalated into more violent and aggressive
levels. In addition to seeking injunctive relief against the
defendants, it also sought to have the court require them to vacate the
dwelling.
appear before a committee of unit
owners for the development of harmonious relations
The court found that the defendants had threatened and disturbed other
unit owners with repeated aggressive behavior and threatening words and
actions. It ruled that the “credible evidence also established that the
association tried to remedy the defendants’ behavior by speaking to the
defendants, having the defendants appear before a committee of unit
owners for the development of harmonious relations, calling the police
on multiple occasions and having legal counsel send letters of
violation demanding that the threatening and aggressive behavior stop,
all to no avail.”
The ruling states that the association called a meeting of its
grievance committee, during which Gonzalez acknowledged that he had
been banging on the ceiling of his unit, and he suggested that he would
not have to serve much time in prison if he killed somebody.
It reads:
“On numerous occasions continuing until the current time, he would use
a stick or other object to bang on his ceiling, claiming that the
occupant above his unit was making too much noise, but in reality these
noises were common day-to-day noises such as walking through the
apartment or taking a shower. On one occasion, he walked upstairs to
use a baseball bat to bang on the occupant’s door, frightening her
deeply that the defendant was attempting to break into her unit and
resulting in the police being called to the premises. He later
approached this same occupant when she was on the common areas,
threatening her to her face. On another occasion, the defendant Juan
Gonzalez threatened a staff member with a knife, and threatened the
property manager that the defendant would run him over with his car.”
The evidence also demonstrated that Gonzalez admitted to an owner that
he had punctured two tires in the condominium parking lot, and another
unit owner observed him using a knife to pry open the screen on a
vacant unit and go inside. Police were called numerous times, and many
unit owners advised the responding officers that they did not feel safe
and feared violence. When Gonzalez discovered that the owners had
approached law enforcement, he went door-to-door in his building
threatening his neighbors.
The ruling also states: “Defendant Arlene Gonzalez came over to the
next-door neighbor’s unit and began banging on the door, due to the
neighbor’s having complained about the defendants to the association.
The neighbor refused to come outside to talk, because of the
defendants’ history on the premises. At this point, the defendant Juan
Gonzalez came over to the unit and punched the neighbor in the chest
while he was standing in the doorway, knowing that the neighbor had
recently had open-heart surgery.”
The court issued an injunction against the defendants barring them from
threatening, aggressive, abusive and harassing actions toward
association personnel and other unit owners, including shouting abusive
words and threats, pounding on doors, pounding on the ceiling of their
unit, pounding on walls and damaging any property belonging to others.
It also bars them from knocking on doors of other units and approaching
or speaking to any unit owners of their building in the common elements
of the property.
However, even with the apparently overwhelming evidence against the
defendants, the court declined to issue an order enjoining them from
occupying their unit. The ruling states: “While the court acknowledges
that there is some legal authority that a court may dispossess an owner
of real property through injunction, the court believes that this is
likely disfavored when other injunctive relief may well give the
plaintiff the remedy necessary to ameliorate the harm caused by the
defendants. In this case, the court’s injunction should be broad enough
to prevent further misconduct by the defendants.”
The ruling warns that if the defendants violate the injunction, the
association would be free to petition the court for an order to show
cause, which could result in their incarceration for contempt of court.
In cases such as this in which disputes involving unit owners become
extremely threatening and potentially violent, it is incumbent on the
association and its attorney to move as quickly as possible to exercise
its legal authority to remedy the situation. Injunctions such as the
one issued in this case can be very appropriate and effective, and
orders to remove owners from their residences are also possible in
extreme cases.
Commentary by Michael L. Hyman. Michael L. Hyman is a shareholder with
the South Florida law firm Siegfried, Rivera, Hyman, Lerner, De La
Torre, Mars & Sobel
top contents
chapter previous next