CALUSA GOLF, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
LIZABETH CARLSON AND CURTIS CARLSON, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a preliminary injunction was improperly granted because the fence served a useful purpose, even if spite was a partial motive.
Appellant sought to construct a fence around a golf course on its property. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction against construction.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Finding that the trial court abused its discretion, we reverse the court’s order granting a preliminary injunction. The court enjoined appellant from constructing a fence around the Calusa golf course located on appellant’s property.
In Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), cert. denied, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla.1960), the court stated:
[WJhere a structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose, it does not give rise to a cause of action, either for damages or for an injunction under the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, even though it causes injury to another by cutting off the light and air and interfering with the view that would otherwise be available over adjoining land in its natural state, regardless of the fact that the structure may have been erected partly for spite, (citations omitted)
The record discloses that the fence would serve a useful purpose by protecting the golf course from trespass and vandalism. Thus, even though a spiteful purpose may have partially motivated the construction of the fence, an injunction is inappropriate under the facts of this case, and its issuance constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. See Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. Cf. Larkin v. Tsavaris, 85 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1956) (chancellor did not abuse his discretion in ordering reduction in height of log fence which served no reasonable purpose but to annoy adjoining landowner).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mickel v. Norton, 69 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…e Nortons had a legal right to view the water by looking over the Mickels’ yard, we conclude the fence served a useful purpose by protecting the Mickels’ privacy and keeping trespassers from entering their property. See Calusa Golf, Inc. v. Carlson, 464 So. 2d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that an injunction preventing the construction of a fence was inappropriate “even though a spiteful purpose may have partially motivated the construction” where the fence would “serve a useful purpose by protecting…
-
Sockolof v. Eden Point N. Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 487 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…, 1982, and the vote resulting therefrom, was improper or illegal. [*1115] 5. The expansion of the pool deck and movement of the fence serves useful and beneficial purposes, pretermitting relief in favor of Plaintiffs. Calusa Golf, Inc. v. [Carlson, 464 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)]. 6. MR. & MRS. SOCKOLOFF failed to take prompt action to preserve the status quo and otherwise failed to timely seek judicial relief. Although MR. & MRS. SOCKOLOFF were on notice as early as March 15, 1982 that the fence would b…
-
Lizabeth Carlson and Curtis Carlson v. Calusa Golf Inc., 498 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…tivated by spite, the adjacent property owners could not seek to enjoin the construction where the evidence showed that the fence would serve the useful purpose of protecting the golf course from trespass and vandalism. Calusa Golf, Inc. v. Carlson, 464 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985). This appeal is from a summary judgment entered for Calusa in appellant’s action for a preliminary injunction, based on a finding that no issue was presented on the material fact that the fence…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Larkin v. Tsavaris, 85 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1956)
- Tatum Corp. v. Vinyard, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960)
- Giliespie v. State, 117 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1960)