Case Name: IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. Daniel R. MONACO and Ann D. Monaco, husband and wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-01-14
Citations: 752 So. 2d 653
Docket Number: No. 2D98-4586
Parties: IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. Daniel R. MONACO and Ann D. Monaco, husband and wife, Appellees.
Judges: SALCINES, J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 752
Pages: 653–656

Head Matter:
IMPERIAL GOLF CLUB, INC., Appellant, v. Daniel R. MONACO and Ann D. Monaco, husband and wife, Appellees.
No. 2D98-4586.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jan. 14, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 2000.
Robert L. Donald of Law Office of Robert L. Donald, Fort Myers, for Appellant.
G. Gordon Harrison of Pavese, Garner, Haverfield, Dalton, Harrison & Jensen, LLP, Fort Myers, for Collier’s Reserve Country Club, Inc., Fiddlesticks Country Club, Inc., The Forest Country Club, Inc., Foxfire Community Association, Inc., Kensington Golf & Country Club, Inc., Royal Palm Country Club of Naples, Inc., Royal Wood Golf & Country Club, Inc., Stonebrige Country Club Community Association, Inc., Worthington Master Association, Inc. and Wyndemere Country Club, Inc., Amicus Curiae. Sheryl A. Edwards of Sheryl A. Edwards, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellees.

Opinion:
WHATLEY, Judge.
Imperial Golf Club, Inc., appeals a final judgment entered in favor of Daniel and Ann Monaco. We affirm.
The Monacos purchased a lot on the Imperial Golf Course in the early 1980s and built a house. The Monacos' back lot line abuts the golf course and measures approximately 200 feet. The Monaco property is closest to the fifth tee. The fourth green is located on the other side of the fifth tee.
In July 1997, Imperial began construction of a structure providing restroom facilities and a shelter, between the fifth tee and the fourth green. This structure replaced an older facility that, had been in a different location. The new structure is approximately 81 feet from the Monaco property line and it measures 25 feet by 15 feet. Before the new structure, the Mona-cos had an unobstructed view of the fifth tee and the fourth green. Imperial concedes that the new structure obstructs the Monacos' view of the fourth green in substantial part.
The Monacos filed suit alleging that Imperial breached a restrictive covenant, because the new structure obstructs their view of the golf course. The suit sought injunctive relief and, in the alternative, damages. The language of the restrictive covenant at issue provides the following:
That no fences, hedges, or other obstructions may be constructed around or near the boundaries of the lands set forth and described hereinabove, the purpose of this clause being at all times to permit complete visibility of the golf course and its appurtenances from the surrounding lands owned by WHISPERING PINES, INC., a Florida Corporation, its successors and assigns.
Imperial is a successor to Whispering Pines, Inc., and the covenant is recorded on Imperial's property.
The trial court found that Imperial violated the restrictive covenant, that injunc-tive relief would not be appropriate, and that damages were appropriate in the amount of $45,000.
In its first point in this appeal, Imperial argues that the structure is not a fence, hedge, or other obstruction, as prohibited by the restrictive covenant. We do not find merit in this argument and affirm it without discussion.
In its second point, Imperial argues that the structure is not "around or near" the boundary of the Monaco property, and therefore, it does not violate the restrictive covenant. We disagree. Restrictive covenants will be enforced where their intent is clear and their restrictions are reasonable. See Ballinger v. Smith, 54 So.2d 433 (Fla.1951). We conclude the intent of the restrictive covenant is clear and reasonable. It specifically states that "the purpose of this clause being at all times to permit complete visibility of the golf course and its appurtenances from the surrounding lands." Because the new structure prevents the Monacos' complete visibility of the golf course, the structure violates the intent and purpose of the restrictive covenant. See Robins v. Walter, 670 So.2d 971, 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) ("While we are aware that restrictive covenants should be narrowly construed, they should never be construed in a manner that would defeat the plain and obvious purpose and intent of the restriction.").
In Barrett v. Leiher, 355 So.2d 222, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), this court held:
Florida adheres to the general rule that a reasonable, unambiguous restriction will be enforced according to the intent of the parties as expressed by the clear and ordinary meaning of its terms. If it is necessary to construe a somewhat ambiguous term, the intent of the parties as to the evil sought to be avoided expressed by the covenants as a whole will be determinative.
Here, the restrictive covenant does not define the terms "around or near the boundaries of the lands." Therefore, the language "around or near" must be construed in conjunction with the language of the entire covenant and the intent of the parties. See Eastpointe Property Owners' Ass'n v. Cohen, 505 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). To hold that the structure does not violate the restrictive covenant because it is not within a few feet of the Monacos' property line, even though that structure substantially interferes with the Monacos' visibility of the golf course, would contradict the intent of the covenant. We conclude that the restrictive covenant, read in its entirety, prohibited the building of the structure in this location. Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SALCINES, J., Concurs.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., Dissents with opinion.
. The Monacos presented expert testimony that supports the damage award.