Marybeth Leamer, as Trustee, etc. v. Marilyn B. White and Omni Amelia Island, etc.
156 So. 3d 567
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Long Point townhouses governed by Covenants; section 3.17(b) restricts "ostentatious site features" and references "lighting systems which may be offensive to adjacent neighbors."
- Leamers installed landscape lighting without prior Board approval; neighboring Whites complained that lights were offensive and intrusive into their home.
- Amelia Island Plantation Architectural Review Board (controlled by Omni) required Leamer to submit an application and demanded written assent from adjacent neighbors, interpreting 3.17(b) as granting a neighbor veto.
- Leamer submitted a modified lighting plan; the Board found it acceptable but refused approval because Whites maintained their objection and the Board claimed it could not override section 3.17(b).
- Whites sued for injunctive relief; Leamer sought a declaratory ruling that the covenant did not grant a neighbor veto. Trial court granted summary judgment to Whites and Omni; Leamer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leamer) | Defendant's Argument (White/Omni) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3.17(b) grants an adjacent-neighbor veto over lighting | §3.17(b) does not clearly grant a veto; Board must exercise its own discretion | The covenant allows neighbors to block lighting they find offensive; Board must honor that objection | Court held covenant does not create a neighbor veto; Board, not a single neighbor, must decide reasonableness |
| Proper interpreter of ambiguous aesthetic terms (e.g., "ostentatious") | Ambiguity resolves against drafter/association; but wording supports Board discretion | Association contends wording gives neighbors decisive control to prevent disputes | Court interpreted "ostentatious" as requiring Board aesthetic judgment and neighbor views as a factor, not dispositive |
| Validity of Board conditioning approval on neighbor written assent | Such a unilateral procedural requirement is unreasonable and not in the Covenants | Board argues procedural requirement avoids litigation and is consistent with §3.17(b) | Court found the Board exceeded its authority by imposing a veto requirement not in the Covenants |
| Appropriate remedy on summary judgment | Leamer sought declaration that no neighbor veto exists and judgment accordingly | White/Omni sought affirmance of Board's interpretation and judgment for them | Court reversed summary judgment for White/Omni in part, directed entry for Leamer on the veto issue, affirmed other aspects including no error on selective enforcement claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Klinow v. Island Court at Boca W. Prop. Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., 64 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA) (restrictive-covenant interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Shields v. Andros Isle Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 872 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA) (restrictive covenants enforced according to clear ordinary meaning)
- Wilson v. Rex Quality Corp., 839 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA) (restrictive covenants strictly construed against party asserting limitation)
- Killearn Acres Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Keever, 595 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA) (architectural-review rules applied to satellite/dish precedent and remedy discussion)
- Robins v. Walter, 670 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA) (covenants should not be construed to defeat their plain purpose)
- Hurt v. Leatherby Ins. Co., 380 So. 2d 432 (Fla.) (ambiguities construed against the drafter)
- Lakeridge Greens Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Silberman, 765 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA) (architectural-control approval required for decorative features)