Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District · 1959 · Property

Propertylight and airno easementnuisancesunlightlight and airsunlightancient lights

Facts

The Fontainebleau Hotel and the Eden Roc Hotel were adjoining luxury oceanfront hotels in Miami Beach, with the Eden Roc to the north of the Fontainebleau. The defendants were constructing a fourteen-story addition on the north side of the Fontainebleau, twenty feet from the north property line and 76 feet 8 inches from the ocean bulkhead line; during winter afternoons the addition's shadow would fall over the Eden Roc's cabana, pool, and sunbathing areas. The plaintiff alleged interference with light and air, malicious placement of the addition to injure the Eden Roc, violation of a setback ordinance, and easement-based rights to light and air. The chancellor granted a temporary injunction solely on the theory that one may not use his property to the injury of another.

Issue

Whether an adjoining landowner may obtain an injunction against construction of a useful hotel addition that blocks sunlight and air to neighboring property, absent a statutory, contractual, or easement-based right. Also, whether the alleged spite motive or an asserted setback-ordinance violation supplied a basis for equitable relief on these facts.

Rule

A property owner may put his property to any reasonable and lawful use so long as he does not deprive an adjoining owner of a right recognized and protected by law and so long as the use is not one the law pronounces a nuisance. In the absence of a contractual or statutory obligation, or an easement or other recognized legal right, a landowner has no legal right to the free flow of light and air across adjoining land. Therefore, a structure serving a useful and beneficial purpose does not give rise to damages or injunctive relief merely because it cuts off light, air, or view, even if erected partly for spite.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In San Diego, Nora Kim owns a boutique inn next to a vacant lot owned by Harbor Crest Development. Harbor Crest begins constructing a lawful 12-story apartment building that will shade Nora's rooftop lounge every afternoon, reducing reservations. Nora points to no statute, covenant, or easement protecting access to sunlight.

If Nora seeks an injunction solely because the new building will block sunlight and air to her property, what is the strongest argument against relief?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a landowner may make reasonable and lawful use of land so long as no recognized legal right of the neighbor is invaded and the use is not otherwise a legal nuisance. Absent a contract, statute, or easement, there is no legal right to unobstructed light and air across adjacent land, so a useful lawful structure is not enjoinable merely because it casts a shadow. (Derived from Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc. (1959).)