Summary
In Palm Beach Polo, Inc. v. Hill, 757 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (hereafter Hill III), this court clarified its decision in Hill v. Palm Beach Polo, Inc., 717 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (hereafter Hill I), stating "[i]n our previous opinion, we concluded that the restrictive covenant portions of the amendments were valid, but the affirmative covenants involving payment of assessments were invalid."
Summary of this case from Hill v. Palm Beach PoloOpinion
Nos. 4D99-3021 and 4D99-3066.
Opinion filed May 31, 2000.
Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Catherine M. Brunson, Judge; L.T. Case No. CL 95-4230 AH.
Joseph Ianno, Jr. and Henry S. Wulf of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith Cutler, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellants-Palm Beach Polo, Inc. and Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc.
Geoffrey B. Marks of Cole White Billbrough, P.A., Miami, for Appellant-Palm Beach Polo and Country Club Association, Inc.
Thomas W. Hill, Jr., Wellington, for appellee.
Palm Beach Polo, Inc., Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., and Palm Beach Polo and Country Club Property Owners Assocation, Inc. appeal from a final order entered by the trial court afterthe issuance of our opinion in Hill v. Palm Beach Polo, Inc., 717 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Appellants contend that the trial court failed to comply with this court's opinion and mandate. We reverse and remand.
The Third Amended Complaint, in pertinent part, challenged the 1995 amendments to the governing documents of the Property Owners Association. In our previous opinion, we concluded that the restrictive covenant portions of the amendments were valid, but the affirmative covenants involving payment of assessments were invalid. 717 So.2d at 1081. We remanded for further proceedings.
The trial court entered an amended final summary judgment in favor of Tom Hill that invalidated all of the 1995 amendments. We agree with appellants that the trial court should have conducted a hearing to determine which of the amendments were monetary provisions and the validity of the remaining affirmative provisions of the amendments.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DELL, FARMER, and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.