Lock Properties LLC v. Kelly Plantation Owners Association, Inc., a Florida corporation not for profit

FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-0256
_____________________________
L OCK PROPERTIES LLC,
Appellant,
v.
KELLY PLANTATION OWNERS
A SSOCIATION , I NC ., a Florida
corporation not for profit,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the County Court for Okaloosa County.
Angela Mason, Judge.
November 19, 2025
LONG, J.
Lock Properties, LLC, whose managing member is Henry
Lock (individually and collectively, “Lock”), appeals from the trial
court’s 	order 	granting 	summary 	judgment 	in 	favor 	of 	Kelly
Plantation 	Owners 	Association, 	Inc. 	(the 	“Association”), 	and
enjoining Lock to remove and replace the roof on his house.
This case arose from Lock replacing his roof without the
Association’s prior approval. 	The replacement roof consists of a
steel underlayment that is covered in barrel roofing tiles made of

2
stone. The Association’s documents require residents to obtain the
Association’s 	approval 	before 	installation 	of 	a 	roof, 	and 	the
documents prohibit “[m]etal roofs.” 	Thus, the Association filed a
complaint 	for 	permanent 	injunctive 	relief 	against 	Lock. 	The
Association sought to force Lock to remove and replace his new
roof. 	It alleged two violations: (1) the new roof was installed
without prior approval, and (2) the new roof is a prohibited metal
roof. Lock responded claiming that his roof is not a metal roof but
conceding that he installed the roof without prior approval.
The Association moved for summary judgment, and the trial
court granted the motion, finding that Lock’s roof was a “metal
roof.” 	The trial court consequently ordered Lock to remove and
replace the roof. 	This appeal followed. 	On appeal, Lock argues
that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether his
roof is a “metal roof.” 	And he argues that his installation of the
roof 	without 	prior 	approval 	cannot 	support 	the 	injunction
requiring him to remove and replace his roof. 	We agree and
reverse.
“Summary judgment is appropriate ‘only if there is no genuine
issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.’” 	Strama v. Union Fidelity Life Ins.
Co., 793 So. 2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (quoting Menendez
v. Palms West Condo. Ass’n, 736 So. 2d 58, 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)).
There is no dispute that Lock’s roof contains metal. 	And the
parties agree that the roof is covered with stone tiles. The dispute
is whether the metal underlayment suffices to make the roof a
“metal roof.” 	There is, therefore, a genuine dispute over whether
the roof is a metal roof. 	This disputed material fact renders
summary judgment inappropriate.
Lock next challenges the injunction requiring him to remove
and replace the roof. “[A] mandatory injunction is proper ‘where a
clear legal right is at stake, irreparable harm is threatened, and
the remedy at law is inadequate.’” Fowler v. Burnham, 408 So. 3d
834, 837 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025) (quoting Gulf Power Co. v. Glass, 355
So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)). But “to enforce a restrictive
covenant, one need not show that the violation thereof amounts to
an irreparable injury” or that it lacks an adequate remedy at law.
Id. (quoting Europco Mgmt. Co. of Am. v. Smith, 572 So. 2d 963,

3
968 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)). 	Still, a homeowners’ association does
not have unlimited authority to enforce its covenants by way of
mandatory injunction. See id. A party may successfully challenge
the enforcement of a covenant by proving “defensive matters that
preclude enforcement, such as that the enforcing authority has
acted in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner.” 	Id. (quoting
Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019,
1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)).
The Association effectively concedes that requiring Lock to
remove and replace his roof would be unreasonable if the roof is
not a prohibited metal roof. 	As the Association explains, “[i]f an
owner installed an ‘indisputably compliant’ roof without approval
and 	then 	sought 	approval, 	an 	association 	could 	approve 	the
compliant roof so removal would be unnecessary.” 	Consequently,
the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment and
awarded injunctive relief in favor of the Association. We REVERSE
the trial court’s order and REMAND this case to the trial court for
further proceedings.
OSTERHAUS, C.J., and W INOKUR , J., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Daniel S. Rosenheim and Gregory J. Philo of Burke Blue, Panama
City Beach, for Appellant.
Jennifer Gutai Comella of Hand Arendall Harrison Sale, LLC,
Destin, for Appellee.