114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. owns and operates the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. owns the Eden Roc Hotel, which adjoins the Fontainebleau on the north and was constructed in 1955, about a year after the Fontainebleau. Both are luxury hotels facing the Atlantic Ocean.1
The proposed addition to the Fontainebleau is being constructed twenty feet from its north property line, 130 feet from the mean high water mark of the Atlantic Ocean, and 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead line. The 14-story tower will extend 160 feet above grade in height and is 416 feet long from east to west. During the winter months, from around two o'clock in the afternoon for the remainder of the day, the shadow of the addition will extend over the cabana, swimming pool, and sunbathing areas of the Eden Roc.2
In this action, plaintiff-appellee sought to enjoin the defendants-appellants from proceeding with the construction of the addition to the Fontainebleau, which was roughly eight stories high at the time suit was filed.3 The complaint alleged that the construction would interfere with the light and air on the beach in front of the Eden Roc.4 It cast a shadow of such size as to render the beach wholly unfitted for the use and enjoyment of its guests, to the irreparable injury of the plaintiff.5 It further alleged that the construction of such addition on the north side of defendants' property was actuated by malice and ill will on the part of the defendants' president toward the plaintiff's president.6 The construction was in violation of a building ordinance requiring a 100-foot setback from the ocean.7
The defendants' answer denied the material allegations of the complaint and pleaded laches and estoppel by judgment.8 The chancellor heard considerable testimony on the issues made by the complaint and the answer and entered a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from continuing with the construction of the addition.9
The chancellor's reason for granting the temporary injunction was stated in a memorandum opinion.10 It was based solely on the proposition that no one has a right to use his property to the injury of another.11 The opinion noted evidence that the proposed use would materially damage the Eden Roc.12 There was some indication of malicious purpose.13 Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. took an interlocutory appeal from the order temporarily enjoining the construction to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.14
Whether the chancellor properly granted a temporary injunction restraining construction of a hotel addition on the ground that no one has a right to use property to the injury of another?15
The maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas means only that one must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another.16 A property owner may put his own property to any reasonable and lawful use.17 He must not thereby deprive the adjoining landowner of any right of enjoyment of his property which is recognized and protected by law.18 His use must not be such a one as the law will pronounce a nuisance.19
No. The chancellor's application of the maxim therefore rests on an erroneous legal premise that does not support injunctive relief.20 The established facts demonstrate that the Fontainebleau addition serves a useful purpose as a hotel expansion and creates no recognized legal injury to the Eden Roc because no right to light and air exists.21
The chancellor did not properly grant the temporary injunction restraining construction of the hotel addition.22
Whether an adjoining landowner possesses any legal right to the free flow of light and air across a neighbor's property absent an easement or statutory provision?23
No American decision has been cited, and independent research has revealed none, in which it has been held that in the absence of some contractual or statutory obligation a landowner has a legal right to the free flow of light and air across the adjoining land of his neighbor.24 Even at common law, the landowner had no legal right, in the absence of an easement or uninterrupted use and enjoyment for a period of 20 years, to unobstructed light and air from the adjoining land.25 The English doctrine of ancient lights has been unanimously repudiated in this country.26
No. The established facts show that Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. alleged interference with light and air on the beach in front of the Eden Roc but pleaded no express easement, implied easement, or prescriptive right across the Fontainebleau property.27 The Fontainebleau addition is being built entirely on Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. land pursuant to a city permit.28 Because no legal right to light and air exists under these facts, the shadow cast on the Eden Roc cabana, pool, and sunbathing areas creates no actionable injury.29
An adjoining landowner does not possess any legal right to the free flow of light and air across a neighbor's property absent an easement or statutory provision.30
Whether an alleged violation of a municipal setback ordinance affords an adjoining property owner a cause of action for injunctive relief against hotel construction?31
Even if there was such a violation, the plaintiff would have no cause of action against the defendants based on such violation.32 The application of simple mathematics to the sun studies filed in evidence by plaintiff in support of its claim demonstrates conclusively that to move the existing structure back some 23 feet from the ocean would make no appreciable difference in the problem which is the subject of this controversy.33 The construction of the 14-story addition is proceeding under a permit issued by the city pursuant to the mandate of this court in City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., which permit authorizes completion of the 14-story addition according to a plan showing a 76-foot setback from the ocean bulkhead line.34 In these circumstances, it is our view that the plaintiff has stated no cause of action for equitable relief based on the violation of the ordinance assuming, arguendo, that there has been a violation.35
No. The established facts establish that the Fontainebleau addition stands 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead line under a permit validated by prior litigation.36 The Eden Roc suit was filed only after the structure reached roughly eight stories.37 Even assuming a setback violation, moving the tower an additional 23 feet would produce no appreciable change in the shadow affecting the Eden Roc.38 The delay in objecting supports the conclusion that no equitable relief arises from the ordinance claim.39
An alleged violation of a municipal setback ordinance does not afford an adjoining property owner a cause of action for injunctive relief against hotel construction.40