Clark and Glenz v. Bluewater Key Rv Ownership Park Property Owners Assoc., Inc.
226 So. 3d 276
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park (81 lots) is governed by a 1989 Declaration of Restrictions and Park Rules enacted by the Association.
- The Clarks and Glenz operated the "Clark Rental Program," managing ~21 lots for transient RV rentals and using "work campers" who lived on lots in exchange for maintenance and on‑site services.
- The Association operates its own transient rental program and sued the Clarks and Glenz for declaratory and injunctive relief (amended complaint, Oct. 2014), alleging violations of the Declaration (prohibited "commercial activity"), Monroe County tenancy rules, and nuisance to neighbors.
- Defendants counterclaimed alleging selective enforcement, improper amendment/board composition, ultra vires acts, and (Rita Clark) tortious interference and FDUTPA claims seeking damages.
- After a bench trial on the Association’s equitable claims, the trial court found the Clark program’s use of lots for employee housing, tool/equipment storage, repairs, and other business activities constituted prohibited commercial activity and a nuisance, and entered a tailored permanent injunction forbidding those specific uses while preserving ordinary noncommercial rental tasks.
- On appeal, defendants challenged (1) the bench trial timing vis-à-vis jury issues, (2) covenant construction, (3) that the conduct was only a "mere annoyance," and (4) that the injunction is overbroad or unnecessary given cessation of activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Bench trial before jury trial | Association: equitable covenant/nuisance claims properly tried first and separately | Clarks/Glenz: jury demand required; counterclaims entangled with equitable issues | No abuse of discretion; no timely written jury demand in record; claims were distinct so bench trial on equitable claims proper |
| 2) Construction of "commercial activity" in Declaration | Association: covenant prohibits for‑profit business uses (including work campers living/working on lots) | Defendants: rentals to work campers are not prohibited recreational uses; ambiguous covenant should favor free use | De novo review: covenant intent clear to maintain luxury resort and prohibit commercial uses; work campers facilitating the rental business violated the restriction |
| 3) Nuisance vs "mere annoyance" | Association: objective evidence showed disruption rising to actionable nuisance under Article VII §5A | Defendants: activities, at most, caused mere annoyances not warranting injunction | Court applied objective standard; findings supported by substantial competent evidence that conduct constituted a nuisance |
| 4) Scope and necessity of permanent injunction | Association: tailored injunction needed to prevent recurrence and enforce covenants | Defendants: activities ceased; injunction is overbroad and unnecessary | Injunction upheld as carefully tailored; owners may still rent but must avoid proscribed commercial uses; injunction not overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Bluewater Key RV Ownership Park, 197 So. 3d 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (prior litigation and Park history)
- Gem Estates Mobile Home Vill. Ass’n v. Bluhm, 885 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (de novo review principle for covenant construction)
- Klak v. Eagles’ Reserve Homeowners’ Ass’n, 862 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (principles for covenant interpretation)
- Washington Apartment Hotel Co. v. Schneider, 75 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1954) (restrictive covenants construed strictly in favor of free use but not to defeat intent)
- Moore v. Stevens, 106 So. 901 (Fla. 1925) (historical covenant interpretation rule)
- McMillan v. Oaks of Spring Hill Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc., 754 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (covenants not to be construed to defeat their obvious purpose)
- Moss v. Inverness Highlands South and West Civic Ass’n, Inc., 521 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (distinguishable fact pattern re: rental income and permissible residential use)
- James v. Smith, 537 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (distinguishable covenant ambiguity analysis)
- Bechold v. Mariner Props., Inc., 576 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (objective standard for nuisance injunctions)
- A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornstein, 121 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960) (mere disturbance/annoyance may not constitute actionable invasion)
- Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for injunctive relief on factual findings)
- Autozone Stores, Inc. v. Ne. Plaza Venture, LLC, 934 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (injunctions may be granted for covenant violations without separate proof of irreparable harm)