From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wasserstrom v. Wyndemere Homeowner's

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 2, 1998
779 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

No. 97-03352.

Opinion filed September 2, 1998.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Ted H. Brousseau, Judge.

Marie Tomassi, Michael K. Green and Joann M. Kronzer of Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill Mullis, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.

William E. Stockman of DeBoest, Knudsen, Stockman Wiseman, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellee.


In this appeal, three owners of patio homes that share a common roof challenge a permanent injunction that ordered them to remove their newly installed but nonconforming fiberglass shingle roof and replace it with a cedar shake roof. We are compelled to affirm because the record supports the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the final judgment.

The property involved in this litigation is subject to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that required appellants to obtain permission from an Architectural Review Committee before replacing their cedar shake roof with fiberglass asphalt shingles. While the Committee's approval process may be subject to criticism, and notwithstanding the lack of opposition from many of the other homeowners, the fact remains that appellants installed the new roof without obtaining the final approval required by the restrictions governing this residential development.

Accordingly, the trial court's Final Judgment for Permanent Injunction is affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and FRANK and FULMER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Wasserstrom v. Wyndemere Homeowner's

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 2, 1998
779 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)
Case details for

Wasserstrom v. Wyndemere Homeowner's

Case Details

Full title:RHODA W. WASSERSTROM, ROBERT G. BENSEN and LOIS M. BENSEN, Appellants, v…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 2, 1998

Citations

779 So. 2d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)