Restrictive covenants are a cornerstone of community association governance, providing a framework for maintaining the character and harmony of residential developments. However, these covenants, which function as binding agreements between property owners, are often the subject of disputes that test the balance between individual property rights and the collective interests of the community. It is important for community managers and board members to understand how courts approach certain issues and be familiar with recent legal trends.
The recent case of Fowler v. Burnham out of Florida provides important insights into the enforceability of restrictive covenants when an injunction is sought to enjoin a violation of such covenants. An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. Injunctions are often used to prevent harm, or to enforce compliance with legal obligations. And, while Florida cases are not controlling law in North and South Carolina, they can serve as persuasive authority, which means courts in North Carolina and South Carolina may consider the reasoning on cases from other states, such as Florida, when addressing similar legal issues.
In Fowler, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions for the Association included a restrictive covenant explicitly prohibiting mobile homes on any lot. Despite this prohibition, the owners placed a mobile home on their property after a brief and ultimately withdrawn amendment to the declaration. The new board of the Association sought an injunction to compel the removal of the mobile home.
The trial court found the mobile home violated the restrictive covenant but denied the injunction, reasoning the Association had not demonstrated “irreparable harm.” On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. The court held that when someone violates a restrictive covenant, an association doesn’t have to prove that it suffered financial damage or that there’s no other legal way to fix the problem (which are both traditional legal requirements in rendering a monetary judgment). Just showing that the restriction was violated is enough to ask the court for an injunction.
This decision from Florida is good news for homeowners associations—even outside the state.
While this ruling comes from Florida, it can be used as persuasive authority in NC and SC courts. That means your association’s attorney can point to this case as a strong example of how courts in other states are upholding HOA restrictive covenants—without requiring extra burdens of proof like monetary damages or irreparable harm.
If courts in North Carolina or South Carolina were faced with similar facts, the outcome would likely be the same—because both states already follow the same legal standard applied in the Fowler decision. This makes enforcement efforts significantly more efficient. Your association wouldn’t need to spend time and money proving how much a violation cost the community or that no other legal remedy exists. Instead, enforcement can focus directly on the fact that the restrictions were agreed to—and then broken.
It’s important to understand that enforcement of restrictive covenants is treated differently from enforcement of a typical contract. The Fowler decision underscores this distinction, emphasizing that covenant enforcement is rooted in property rights and equitable principles—not merely contractual obligations. The court recognized that when property owners agree to restrictions as part of a common scheme, those restrictions carry a unique legal weight that justifies enforcement even in the absence of measurable financial harm.
The law in all three states treats these obligations not just as promises between parties, but as enforceable conditions tied to the ownership and use of the property.
As a result, associations and their attorneys can confidently seek injunctive relief under existing state law in North Carolina and South Carolina—without the added burden of demonstrating irreparable harm or financial loss. This consistency in legal approach helps streamline enforcement and reduces the strain on community managers and boards. If your board has questions about enforcing restrictive covenants or wants to ensure your association’s rules are upheld effectively, contact one of our experienced attorneys at any of our offices. The attorneys at Law Firm Carolinas are here to help your community navigate the legal landscape with confidence.