Background

• 19650 owns 104 of 158 acres in Presidential Estates; 1986 County Covenant set a total 850 residential units and required conveyances to specify units and county notification.
• 1987 Supplemental Covenant reduced density to 800 units and removed explicit Controlled Densities provision.
• Several deeds in the chain conveyed parcels without stating unit allocations and without county notification of allocations.
• Presidential Club sued in 2007 seeking development rights; Association counterclaimed to bar 19650 from developing under the covenant.
• Trial court granted partial final summary judgment for the Association, finding 19650 forfeited development rights; appellate court reversed and remanded, holding no forfeiture language in the covenant and that courts should not rewrite the contract.
• The court remanded to enter judgment in favor of 19650, clarifying that the covenant should be enforced by its terms without forfeiting rights for mere noncompliance.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Moore v. Stevens, 106 So. 901 (Fla. 1925) (words given ordinary meaning; enforce covenant to effect remedy, not extinguish rights)
• BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (court may not rewrite contract to add unagreed language)
• Prestige Valet, Inc. v. Mendel, 14 So.3d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing where trial court essentially rewrote agreement)
• Esbin v. Erickson, 987 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (covenants construed in favor of free and unrestricted use of property)
• Lathan v. Hanover Woods Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 547 So.2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (covenants interpreted to reflect intent; avoid overreach restricting use)
• Peach State Roofing, Inc. v. 2224 S. Trail Corp., 3 So.3d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (de novo standard for contract interpretation and summary judgment)