Here's the .pdf version of 4th DCA opinion in Villa De Las Palmas HOA v. Terifaj
One interesting aspect of the Terifaj case is that the "no pets" rule was not recorded at the time Terifaj bought her unit, but Terifaj knew the rule existed. In other words, she had actual notice of the covenant but not record notice. How important is that? If you look at most cases on HOA covenant enforcement they nearly always emphasize that the restrictions were recorded and that means the owner took the property subject to the restrictions. Here, if they weren't recorded at the time of her purchase, to put this in animal metaphor terms, is this a case of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"?