Fountainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc.

CASE NAME	FOUNTAINEBLEAU HOTEL CORP., a Florida corporation, and Charnofree Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. FORTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
COURT	District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
CITATION, DATE	114 So. 2d 357; 1959 Fla. App. LEXIS 2744. Aug. 27, 1959

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
TRIAL COURT:		APPEAL COURT (for appeal cases only):
PLAINTIFF	Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc.	APPELLANT	Fountainbleau Hotel
DEFENDANT	Fountainbleau Hotel	RESPONDENT	Forty-five Twenty-five, Inc.

DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS
"This is an interlocutory appeal from an order temporarily enjoining the appellants from continuing with the construction of a fourteen-story addition to the Fontainebleau Hotel, owned and operated by the appellants. Appellee, plaintiff below, owns the Eden Roc Hotel, which was constructed in 1955, about a year after the Fontainebleau, and adjoins the Fontainebleau on the north. Both are luxury hotels, facing the Atlantic Ocean. The proposed addition to the Fontainebleau is being constructed twenty feet from its north property 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, which are located in the southern portion of its property."

REMEDY SOUGHT	In trial court: plaintiff sought an injunction to halt construction. On appeal, appellant sought temination of the injunction.

ARGUMENT FOR PLAINTIFF
"Plaintiff-appellee sought to enjoin the defendants-appellants from proceeding with the construction of the addition to the Fontainebleau (it appears to have been roughly eight stories high at the time suit was filed), alleging that the construction would interfere with the light and air on the beach in front of the Eden Roc and 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; further, that the construction of such addition on the north side of defendants' property, rather than the south side, was actuated by malice and ill will on the part of the defendants' president toward the plaintiff's president; and that the construction was in violation of a building ordinance requiring a 100-foot setback from the ocean. It was also alleged that the construction would interfere with the easements of light and air enjoyed by plaintiff and its predecessors in title for more than twenty years and "impliedly granted by virtue of the acts of the plaintiff's predecessors in title, as well as under the common law and the express recognition of such rights by virtue of Chapter 9837, Laws of Florida 1923."

ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT
The defendants' answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, pleaded laches [negligence or undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege] and estoppel [a bar preventing one from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what one has previously stated as the truth] by judgment.

COURT OPINION
At trial: the temporary injunction was "based solely on the proposition that no one has a right to use his property to the injury of another. In this case it is clear from the evidence that the proposed use by the Fontainebleau will materially damage the Eden Roc." "This is indeed a novel application of the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas [use your own so as not to injure another] . This maxim does not mean that one must never use his own property in such a way as to do any injury to his neighbor.... It means only that one must use his property so as not to injure the lawful rights of another." "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. 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.... And the English doctrine of "ancient lights" has been unanimously repudiated in this country." "There being, then, no legal right to the free flow of light and air from the adjoining land, it is universally held that where 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." "We see no reason for departing from this universal rule. If, as contended on behalf of plaintiff, public policy demands that a landowner in the Miami Beach area refrain from constructing buildings on his premises that will cast a shadow on the adjoining premises, an amendment of its comprehensive planning and zoning ordinance, applicable to the public as a whole, is the means by which such purpose should be achieved.... But to change the universal rule - and the custom followed in this state since its inception - that adjoining landowners have an equal right under the law to build to the line of their respective tracts and to such a height as is desired by them (in an absence, of course, of building restrictions or regulations) amounts, in our opinion, to judicial legislation."

DISPOSITION OF CASE
Since it affirmatively appears that the plaintiff has not established a cause of action against the defendants by reason of the structure here in question, the order granting a temporary injunction should be and it is hereby reversed with directions to dismiss the complaint. Reversed with directions.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

In principle, either decision would have worked here. But notice the claim of spite--bargaining could have been costly in practice.

    Notes:
    interlocutory: Pronounced or decided during the course of an action or suit and merely temporary or provisional in nature
    laches: Negligence or undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege
    estoppel: A bar preventing one from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what one has previously stated as the truth.
    nisi prius: trial court
    sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas: use your own so as not to injure another