Kies v. Hollub
Miami-Dade County · FL · Florida Third District Court of Appeal
Member win · architectural
What happened
Homeowners built an approved tennis court, then installed lighting (with a county variance process in the background) without separate architectural-committee approval. Neighbor-appellees on the committee obtained a trial-court injunction requiring removal of the lights. The Third DCA reversed, holding architectural disapproval was arbitrary: lighting on an already approved court was not expressly barred by the covenants and could not reasonably be read into them without proof of nuisance or aesthetic harm (1984).
What the court (or agency) held
Architectural disapproval must not be arbitrary. Tennis-court lighting on an already approved court was not expressly prohibited by the restrictive covenants and could not reasonably be read into them; without evidence of nuisance or aesthetic harm, an injunction requiring removal was reversed.
Why this matters for members
Committees cannot invent unwritten lighting bans after approving the underlying court. Arbitrary disapproval—unsupported by covenant text or harm evidence—will not support an injunction.
What the member did
Presented expert evidence on light spill, aesthetics, and property values and challenged the injunction on appeal as arbitrary enforcement.
Questions for the board
- Do our covenants expressly regulate outdoor lighting, height, or hours for sports courts?
- If a court or structure was approved, what separate written standard governs later lighting additions?
- What evidence of glare/nuisance do we gather before denying or suing over lights?
Questions for a lawyer
- How do Florida courts review architectural denials for arbitrariness on lighting/amenity facts?
- What interaction between county variances and private covenants should we analyze?
- What record is needed to defend or challenge a lighting injunction?
Citation
Kies v. Hollub, 450 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (1984-05-01). Florida Third District Court of Appeal. Outcome chip: architectural hub / secondary. Source: https://flexlaw.co/case/122445/1984-kies-v-hollub-450-so-2d-251
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.