CLARY
v.
LAMONT ET AL.
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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed an injunction preventing a property owner from selling intoxicating liquors except as an adjunct to regular meals. The court rejected arguments that the restrictive covenant had become unenforceable due to neighborhood changes or that the owner had satisfied its requirements through food service availability.
The trial court's interpretation was correct: liquors may be sold or served only to a customer who has ordered a regular meal for consumption as an adjunct of the meal. Appellant's device of merely making food service available while allowing liquor sales independently constituted a subterfuge equivalent to the covenant's removal. The covenant remained enforceable despite neighborhood changes, as the appellant presented no evidence of widespread covenant violations in the restricted area.
“liquors may be sold or served only to a customer who has ordered a regular meal for consumption as an adjunct of the meal”
The court adopted the chancellor's interpretation of the restrictive covenant's requirement, establishing that mere food availability does not satisfy the restriction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant owned lots six and seven in Block Ten of Bayview Subdivision in Fort Walton, subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting the sale of intox…
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 Construction Of Restrictive Covenants cases and more on FLexlaw
TERRELL, Justice.
This appeal is from a final decree enjoining appellant from violating a restrictive covenant in his deed to lots six and seven, Block Ten, Bayview Subdivision, Fort Walton, which reads as follows • “No intoxicating liquors shall be sold on said lots, except as an adjunct to regular meals.”
The sole point with which we are concerned is whether or not the trial court correctly construed the restrictive covenant.
Appellant contends that he has met the requirements of the restrictive covenant, in that he operates a bar, cocktail lounge and package store and has made food service available on the premises. The chancellor held that “liquors may be sold or served only to a customer who has ordered a regular meal for consumption as an adjunct of the meal.” We are convinced that the chancellor’s interpretation was correct. In fact, appellant’s device for meeting the requirements of the covenant is a mere subterfuge that would be equivalent to its removal.
It is further contended that the neighborhood has changed to such extent as to make further enforcement of the restrictive covenant unreasonable and arbitrary. It is shown that there is a bar across the street in an area that is unrestricted but no other attempt has been made to operate in the restricted area. It is further contended that no deed in appellant’s chain of title spells out the requirements of the restrictive covenant. This is true but such a deed was on record and has been supplied by supplement to the record since the case was lodged in this court. Appellant’s deed was made “subject to the conditions and restrictions in the deed from Nannie Esther Starkey” which is the supplied deed.
No error being made to appear, the judgment appealed from must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed. THOMAS, SEBRING, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur. ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
HOBSON, J., not participating.
ROBERTS, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I do not agree to the narrow definition of the term “adjunct to regular meals” as adopted by the lower court. I agree that the lot is subject to the restrictions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hevia v. Palm Terrace Fruit Co., 119 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)…idest latitude possible in disposition of one’s property, such covenants are enforced so long as they are not contrary to public policy or express law and so long as restraint is within reasonable hounds.” In the case of Clary v. Lamont, Fla. 1953, 67 So. 2d 227, conditions and restrictions in deed of record containing covenants against intoxicating liquors on premises except as an adjunct to regular meals, were upheld. The restrictions involved in this proceeding and sought to be enforced do not question t…