Case Name: ESTATES OF FORT LAUDERDALE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Edna KALET and Carol Kalet, Appellees/Cross-Appellants; Edna KALET and Carol Kalet, Appellants, v. ESTATES OF FORT LAUDERDALE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-02-05
Citations: 492 So. 2d 1340
Docket Number: Nos. 84-1428, 84-1462
Parties: ESTATES OF FORT LAUDERDALE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Edna KALET and Carol Kalet, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Edna KALET and Carol Kalet, Appellants, v. ESTATES OF FORT LAUDERDALE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, Appellee.
Judges: HURLEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 492
Pages: 1340–1344

Head Matter:
ESTATES OF FORT LAUDERDALE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Edna KALET and Carol Kalet, Appellees/Cross-Appellants. Edna KALET and Carol Kalet, Appellants, v. ESTATES OF FORT LAUDERDALE PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida corporation not-for-profit, Appellee.
Nos. 84-1428, 84-1462.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Feb. 5, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, 1986.
Karen Kantner of Britton, Cassel, Schantz & Schatzman, Fort Lauderdale, for Estates of Fort Lauderdale Property Owners’ Ass’n, Inc.
Ronald P. Gossett of Hodges, Gossett, McDonald, Gossett & Crawford, P.A., Hollywood, for Edna Kalet and Carol Kalet.

Opinion:
SALMON, MICHAEL H., Associate Judge.
The Estates of Fort Lauderdale is a mobile home community. It is divided into a family section (82 homes) and an adult section (701 homes). A recorded declaration prohibits permanent residence in the adult section by any person under the age of sixteen. The community was developed by Escom Enterprises, Inc. (the Developer), who did not totally enforce the age restriction. In April, 1979, the right to enforce the restriction was assigned to the association.
The association, when it acquired the right to enforce the restriction undertook to do so. It wrote letters to offenders, it instructed its attorney to write letters, and it filed suits. Four of those suits were consolidated and resulted in a Final Judgment which denied the association relief because of the equitable doctrine of laches, not because of any action of the association, but because the developer had failed to enforce the restriction. The validity and enforceability of the restriction was upheld, and the court admonished the defendants, who were not enjoined from violating the restriction, not to encourage their neighbors to violate the restriction.
The appellee is a long time resident and owner of a residence in the adult section of the community where she has resided with her adult daughter. In late 1982, Ms. Ka-let's daughter gave birth, and the child is permanently residing with the appellee; hence this lawsuit. At the conclusion of a non-jury trial, the trial judge found that unequal and arbitrary application of the restriction rendered it unenforceable and that the integrity of the adult community was so severely damaged that to apply the age restriction to the appellee was unreasonable.
No attack is made in this case upon the validity and enforceability of age restrictions in general or with particular reference to the one sought to be enforced. The claim is that the association should not be permitted to enforce the restriction against the appellee because that would constitute selective and arbitrary enforcement. White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979) upheld the validity of age restrictions of the type involved in this case, but denied a right to enforce the restriction if the enforcement was selective and arbitrary. White Egret did not define the term selective and arbitrary enforcement, and rooted the doctrine in estoppel. As the trial judge in the case before us found selective and arbitrary enforcement, we must determine whether that judgment is supported by competent evidence. Ladner v. Plaza Del Prado Condominium Association, Inc., 423 So.2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Ladner is important in another respect. It confirms the rule that laxity of a developer in enforcing the restriction does not constitute selective and arbitrary conduct by the association if the association consistently performed its duty to prevent violations of the restriction prospectively once it obtained the right to do so. We do not find competent evidence to support a finding that the association did anything other than attempt to enforce the restriction whenever it found a violation. We recognize the claim of the appellee that some of the association's action constitutes selective and arbitrary enforcement, but an overall examination of the record discloses a consistent effort by the association to enforce the restriction since it acquired the right to do so. Some of the decisions made were seen by the association as the best course available to insure prospective enforcement of the restriction.
We have carefully examined the appel-lee's issues on cross appeal, and determine that they are without merit.
Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the injunctive relief requested in the amended complaint.
HURLEY, J., concurs.
ANSTEAD, J., specially concurs with opinion.
. These consolidated suits are commonly referred to as the Healy or Betty Healy suit.
. The appellee contends that the association did not vigorously pursue the Healy suits, that the stipulation of facts in that suit was inaccurate, that laches would not have applied to all defendants in the Healy suit, and that agreeing to the Healy Final Judgment in itself is selective and arbitrary enforcement.
. It is not necessary to decide or discuss the admissibility of Roy Younghan's deposition. The proffered portions have been examined; if admitted they would not have changed the result in the trial court or this court. If failure to admit the deposition was error, it was harmless.