DON CESAR PROPERTY OWNERS CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT F. GALLAGHER AND RUBY V. GALLAGHER, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Acquiescence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We concur in the court’s determination that a covenant providing that appel-lees’ property shall be “for residence only” does not prohibit the erection of townhouse condominiums. This restriction relates to the use or mode of occupancy to which the property may be put rather than the nature of the structure to be erected thereon. Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 106 So. 901 (1925). Cf. Mayes v. Hale, 82 Fla. 35, 89 So. 364 (1921) (holding that the erection of an apartment house violated a covenant that the property should “be used for residential purposes only, and only one residence is to be erected on each lot”). We also conclude that there is ample evidence to support the court’s finding that, in any event, appellants cannot enforce the covenant because of acquiescence, waiver and abandonment/ See Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313, 114 So. 455 (1927).
AFFIRMED.
RYDER, C.J., and GRIMES and LE-HAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenyon v. Polo Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 907 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…f that finding, which the Association has not challenged, it was error for the trial court to grant the Association’s motion for a permanent injunction. See Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313, 114 So. 455 (1927); Don Cesar Prop. Owners Corp. v. Gallagher, 452 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Prisco. Finally, the Kenyons contend that the trial court erred when it concluded that the Association was the prevailing party and awarded the Association attorney’s fees. Because we are reversing the order granting the permane…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879 (Fla. 1925)
- Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 (Fla. 1927)
- Mayes v. Maude P. Hale, 82 Fla. 35 (Fla. 1921)