## Facts

- Europco Management Company of America (Europco) owned and developed the Southwind II subdivision within the Bluewater Bay Resort Community in Okaloosa County, Florida.
- Europco recorded protective covenants in the county’s official records. The covenants ran with title to lots in Southwind II and bound homeowners.
- The covenants required that no lot clearing or construction of any kind could begin or remain unless plans, design, colors, and location were approved by the developer acting through the Bluewater Bay Architectural Review Committee (or another designated representative).
- The covenants also restricted structures other than the main residence and garage, allowing only certain ancillary structures, subject to approval as to location, architectural design, and exterior finishes.
- The architectural-review committee included representatives of the developer and homeowners (and other representatives). Under the covenants, the developer or its delegated committee could control exterior architectural design and construction to keep design and construction compatible within the subdivision.
- Stephen and Ruth Smith owned a home in Southwind II and began constructing a screened porch at the rear of their house without prior committee approval.
- After the committee discovered the construction, the Smiths stopped work and submitted an application for approval through their representative.
- The committee denied the application, stating that the exterior materials were not harmonious with other houses and that the roof overhang did not conform to restrictions.
- The Smiths asserted they were denied due process because they were not permitted to personally appear before the committee.
- The chair of the homeowner group on the committee testified that the committee did not hold personal appearances to keep decisions objective; applicants could communicate with the committee by letter.
- Europco filed a bench-tried action seeking a mandatory injunction to enforce the covenants and require the Smiths to remove or modify the unapproved porch.
- At the close of Europco’s evidence, the trial court entered a final order dismissing the action and found, without citing authority, that the Smiths’ due-process rights had been violated.
- On appeal, the Smiths did not defend the trial court’s due-process ruling in their brief and conceded at oral argument that they abandoned the issue.

## Issues

1. Whether Europco’s evidence, taken at the close of its case in a nonjury trial, established a prima facie right to a mandatory injunction enforcing recorded restrictive covenants against the Smiths’ unapproved screened-porch construction.
2. Whether the trial court could dismiss the developer’s covenant-enforcement action on the ground that a private architectural-review committee violated the homeowners’ due-process rights by not allowing a personal appearance.

## Decision

- The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the final order of dismissal.
- The court held that Europco’s evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case for enforcement of the protective covenants by mandatory injunction.
- The court rejected the trial court’s due-process basis for dismissal, noting the lack of authority for that ruling and the Smiths’ abandonment of the issue on appeal.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Recorded subdivision restrictive covenants that run with the land may be enforced by injunctive relief when the enforcing party shows the existence of the covenants, its authority to enforce them, and a violation.
- In a nonjury trial, dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s case is improper when the plaintiff’s proof establishes a prima facie entitlement to relief; the defendant’s defenses must be heard before judgment.
- Architectural-review decisions made under private restrictive covenants are governed by the covenant relationship; absent a state-action basis or a contractually required hearing procedure, constitutional due-process protections do not control the committee’s internal review methods.
- A committee’s refusal to allow an in-person appearance does not, by itself, bar covenant enforcement where the covenants require prior approval and the homeowner built without it, especially when applicants can submit information in writing.

## Conclusion

Europco proved the existence of recorded covenants requiring prior architectural approval, its right to enforce those covenants, and the Smiths’ construction of a screened porch without approval followed by the committee’s denial of after-the-fact approval for stated design reasons; therefore, Europco made a prima facie case for mandatory injunctive relief, and the trial court erred by dismissing the case at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence based on an unsupported due-process theory that the homeowners abandoned on appeal.


Europco Management Company of America v. Smith, 572 So. 2d 963 (1990)