CORAL GABLES INVESTMENTS, INC., D/B/A CLUB APARTMENTS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE GRAHAM COMPANIES, A FLORIDA CORPORATION F/K/A THE SENGRA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Coral Gables Investments appeals an injunction enforcing a restrictive covenant that prohibits covering apartment building roofs with fiberglass shingles in the Miami Lakes subdivision. The court affirmed, holding that the covenant's requirement for architectural committee approval of exterior alterations was valid and reasonably exercised based on evidence that wood shingles are safer, more durable, and aesthetically superior.
The restrictive covenant was valid and enforceable. The architectural committee's discretion to approve or deny plans for alterations, including those affecting exterior appearance, logically extends to the type of building materials used. The covenant was not arbitrarily or unreasonably exercised because competent evidence demonstrated that wood shingles are safer, more durable, better withstand natural forces, comply with building codes, and are aesthetically superior.
[1] Restrictive covenants in a deed reserving the grantor's right to approve property improvement plans are enforceable unless the right or its exercise is arbitrary and unre…
[2] An architectural control committee's discretion to approve or deny property improvement plans may include control over the type of building materials used.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Restrictive covenants contained within a deed which reserve the grantor's right to approve plans for improving the land are valid and enforceable against the grantee unless that right or the exercise of it is arbitrary and unreasonable.”
Establishes the legal standard for enforcing restrictive covenants with approval requirements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCGI owned apartment buildings in Miami Lakes subdivision subject to a restrictive covenant requiring approval from the Miami Lakes Architectural Contr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Enforceability Of Restrictive Covenants cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order enforcing a restrictive covenant and granting a permanent injunction prohibiting the covering of apartment building roofs with fiberglass shingles. We affirm.
Appellant Coral Gables Investments, Inc., (CGI), owns several apartment buildings within the Miami Lakes subdivision which are subject to a restrictive covenant contained in the warranty deed. According to the terms of the covenant, any property owner seeking to make alterations must first submit plans to the Miami Lakes Architectural Control Committee for approval. The covenant further states that plans may be refused on any grounds, “including purely aesthetic grounds”. CGI took title to the subject property from Club Apartments, Inc. Some years after the apartment buildings were constructed, CGI began to replace the original wood shingles with fiberglass shingles without prior approval of the architectural control committee. Work was underway when the committee demanded that the re-shingling stop. The Miami Lakes developer, Graham Companies, then commenced this action seeking permanent injunctive relief.
Appellants argue that the covenant did not specifically prohibit the use of fiberglass shingles, and it is arbitrary and unreasonable to read the covenant to manifest such intent. The trial court found these arguments to be unconvincing, entered the injunction, and ordered that wood shingles be used. We agree and affirm.
Restrictive covenants contained within a deed which reserve the grantor’s right to approve plans for improving the land are valid and enforceable against the grantee unless that right or the exercise of it is arbitrary and unreasonable. Engvalson v. Webster, 74 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1954); Kies v. Hollub, 450 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1984).
At trial, competent evidence was presented showing that wood shingles are safer and more aesthetically pleasing than their fiberglass counterparts. Expert testimony demonstrated that wooden shingles are heavier than those made of fiberglass, do not deteriorate as quickly, and withstand the forces of nature, including hurricane force winds, better than fiberglass shingles. A roofing expert testified that fiberglass shingles do not meet the minimum requirements of the South Florida Building Code for wind resistance, whereas wood shingles do. There was also evidence to establish that, aesthetically, wood shingles are superior in both appearance and enhancement of market value of property. This evidence amply supported the finding that enforcement of the covenant was not arbitrary and unreasonable.
Moreover, the covenant put the appellant on notice that any improvement plans had to be approved by the architectural control committee and that the committee had broad discretion in approving plans. Such discretion would logically include control over the type of building materials used; the covenant states, “Any change in the exterior appearance of any building ... shall be deemed an alteration requiring approval.” It was therefore incumbent upon CGI to comply with the covenant’s requirements.
Additionally, the de facto building scheme of the subdivision put appellant on notice that the material it was using was prohibited. Only government buildings and a few other isolated structures in the area do not have either wood shingles or cement tile roof covering. These buildings exist separately from the general scheme of development and do not impact negatively on the overall integrity of the building scheme’s goal to preserve the beauty, symmetry, and uniformity of the development. Therefore, the covenant was equally enforceable on this basis. See Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 511 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 518 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1987).
Finally, the doctrine of balancing conveniences is not applicable to the facts of this case. See Monell v. Golfview Road Ass’n, 359 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Daniel v. May, 143 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…solute and exclusive right to refuse to approve ... plans which are not suitable or desirable in its opinion for any reason, including purely esthetic reasons.” See Europeo Management, 572 So. 2d at 969; Coral Gables Investments v. Graham Companies, 528 So. 2d 989, 990-991 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Photographs and videotapes, standing alone, are generally inadequate to prove that the party seeking enforcement has abused its discretion. Such evidence merely invites the trial court to apply its personal views as to a…
-
Europco Mgmt. Co. OF Am. v. Smith, 572 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…equested injunction by showing that the covenants they allegedly violated are unreasonable or arbitrary on their face, or are being exercised and applied in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner. Coral Gables Investments, Inc. v. The Graham Companies, 528 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Kies v. Hollub, 450 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1984). But this contention is an affirmative defense with the burden resting upon the party attacking the reasonableness of the application of the co…
-
Miami Lakes Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Encinosa, 699 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…ed within a deed which reserve the grantor’s right to approve plans for improving the land are valid and enforceable against the grantee unless that right or the exercise of it is arbitrary and unreasonable.” Coral Gables Invs., Inc. v. Graham Cos., 528 So. 2d 989, 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). [The developer’s reservation of control,] although amounting to plenary discretion in such matters, is to be fairly exercised in a reasonable manner by the developer directly or through delegation to a committee- [The restr…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cushen v. Cushen, 143 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Monell v. Golfview Rd. Ass'n, 359 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc., 511 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Moore v. G.M.B. Corp., 450 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Kies v. Hollub, 450 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Engvalson et ux. v. Webster, 74 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1954)