Nelle v. LOCH HAVEN HOMEOWNERS'ASS'N, INC.
413 So.2d 28, 1982 Fla. LEXIS 2407 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A developer's reservation of the power to approve exceptions to restrictive covenants does not automatically destroy the mutuality of obligation and render the covenants unenforceable; rather, it is one factor to be considered in determining the developer's intent to establish a uniform plan of development.
Facts:
- A developer established the Loch Haven Subdivision and sold lots to various owners, including Robert B. Nelle and the members of the Loch Haven Homeowners' Association.
- The deeds for all lots contained a comprehensive and detailed set of recorded restrictive covenants.
- One covenant stated that the restrictions were real covenants that 'run with the land' and were binding on all property owners.
- Another covenant explicitly granted any lot owner the right to sue any other owner to enforce the restrictions.
- A separate covenant reserved for the original developer 'the right and authority to approve exceptions or variations from these restrictions'.
Procedural Posture:
- Loch Haven Homeowners' Association, Inc. sued Robert B. Nelle in a Florida trial court to obtain an injunction enforcing the subdivision's restrictive covenants.
- The trial court granted a judgment on the pleadings in favor of Nelle, ruling that the covenants were unenforceable.
- The Homeowners' Association, as appellant, appealed to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's decision, finding the covenants were enforceable, and certified a conflict with decisions from other appellate districts.
- Robert B. Nelle, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida to resolve the certified conflict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a developer's reservation of the right to approve exceptions or variations to restrictive covenants automatically render the entire scheme of restrictions unenforceable by one lot owner against another for lack of a uniform plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Adkins, J.
No. A developer's reservation of the right to approve exceptions to restrictive covenants does not automatically render the entire scheme of restrictions unenforceable. The court rejects the prior 'all or nothing' rule, which held that such a reservation negated the existence of a common, uniform building plan. Instead, the court adopts the modern view that this reserved power is merely one factor to be considered in determining whether the developer intended to establish an enforceable uniform plan. Courts now imply a requirement that the developer's reserved power must be exercised reasonably so as not to destroy the general plan, which provides the mutual burden and benefit necessary to sustain the covenants for all grantees. The court found that the comprehensiveness of the Loch Haven restrictions, along with the express language making them binding and enforceable by all owners, demonstrated a clear intent to create a uniform plan of development.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered Florida property law by replacing a rigid, bright-line rule with a flexible, intent-based standard for enforcing restrictive covenants. By treating a developer's reserved power to grant exceptions as only one factor in a multi-factor test, the court made it easier for homeowners and their associations to enforce subdivision rules, thereby promoting stability in planned communities. The ruling protects the expectations of property owners who purchase homes in reliance on a uniform scheme of development. This approach requires that developers exercise their retained powers reasonably, preventing them from arbitrarily undermining the character of a community they created.
