Haingl v. La Puerta Del Sol Condominium Association, Inc.
A condominium association obtained a final judgment for injunctive relief enforcing a settlement agreement with a unit owner, including a provision authorizing a writ of bodily attachment (one day in jail) to issue automatically upon the association's filing of a verified motion or affidavit of noncompliance, without any further hearing. The Second District affirmed the injunctive relief but reversed the bodily-attachment provision, holding that a writ of bodily attachment is a civil contempt sanction that requires notice, a hearing satisfying due process and fundamental fairness, and an opportunity to purge.
Key facts
- La Puerta Del Sol Condominium Association obtained a final judgment for injunctive relief enforcing a settlement agreement with unit owner Haingl, which included a provision for an automatic writ of bodily attachment (one day in jail) upon the association's filing of a verified motion claiming noncompliance, without a hearing.
- The trial court approved the settlement agreement's self-executing attachment provision, allowing the association to trigger incarceration by mere filing of a compliance affidavit.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Practitioners drafting or enforcing settlement agreements with self-executing enforcement mechanisms (common in HOA/condominium compliance settlements) should note that parties cannot contract around the due process… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.