Has a homeowner ever painted their house an unapproved color or engaged in conduct that clearly violates the association’s governing documents? When courtesy notices, violation letters, and fines fail to bring compliance, an association may be forced to consider injunctive relief.
Injunctive relief is a court-ordered remedy requiring someone to take a specific action or to stop doing something altogether. In the community-association context, it is often the only practical way to compel compliance with the governing documents.
To obtain injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish four elements:
Of these four requirements, the third element (whether an association lacks an adequate legal remedy) can be a hotly contested item in enforcement cases.
This issue frequently turns on whether an association’s governing documents provide alternative enforcement tools, such as self-help. Self-help typically allows an association to enter a lot and correct a violation directly, then assess the cost to the owner.
Florida’s District Courts of Appeal have not reached a uniform conclusion on whether the availability of self-help defeats a claim for injunctive relief. Some courts have questioned whether injunctive relief is appropriate when self-help is authorized, while others have concluded that self-help does not automatically qualify as an adequate legal remedy.
Florida’s District Courts of Appeal have not reached a uniform conclusion on whether the availability of self-help defeats a claim for injunctive relief. Some courts have questioned whether injunctive relief is appropriate when self-help is authorized, while others have concluded that self-help does not automatically qualify as an adequate legal remedy.
A recent decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal clarified this issue. In Mooney v. Color le Palais of Boynton Beach Homeowners Association, 419 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025), the court held that the mere existence of self-help authority does not bar injunctive relief. The court emphasized that a legal remedy must be “plain, certain, prompt, speedy, sufficient, full and complete, practical and efficient” to preclude equitable relief, quoting McNorton v. Pan Am. Bank of Orlando, N.A., 387 So. 2d 393, 399 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Exercising self-help typically requires multiple notices, compliance deadlines, and in some cases, an opportunity for a hearing. Even then, determining what level of corrective action is reasonable can be difficult.
For example, consider a severely neglected yard. Should the association remove only the most obvious weeds, trim overgrown landscaping, replace dead plants, or perform a full landscape overhaul? Each option involves different costs, varying degrees of intrusion, and legal risk, with no clear guidance on where the line should be drawn.
In other situations, self-help may be impossible altogether. If a homeowner is operating an unlawful short-term rental through platforms like AirBnB, the association cannot access or remove the online listing. Additionally, self-help efforts often provoke strong resistance from owners, increasing the risk of confrontation, liability, and escalation.
These realities help explain why Florida courts continue to grant injunctive relief in appropriate cases. When alternative remedies are uncertain, impractical, or ineffective, courts are often willing to step in and order compliance directly.
When violations persist and voluntary compliance is no longer achievable, associations must weigh enforcement options carefully. Self-help may be authorized on paper, but it is not always practical, cost-effective, or legally sufficient. Injunctive relief remains a powerful tool when used strategically and supported by the governing documents and applicable case law. Boards and managers should seek legal guidance early to assess risks, costs, and the likelihood of success before proceeding.
