## Facts

- Two adjacent Miami Beach oceanfront hotels operated on neighboring tracts: Fontainebleau (south) and Eden Roc (north).
- Fontainebleau began constructing a fourteen-story addition near its north property line, which would cast afternoon shadows over Eden Roc’s cabanas, pool, and sunbathing areas during winter months.
- Eden Roc sought to enjoin the construction, alleging irreparable business harm from loss of sunlight and air, interference with purported easements of light and air, malice motivating the building’s placement, and violation of an ocean setback ordinance.
- Fontainebleau denied liability and asserted defenses including laches and estoppel by judgment.
- The trial court entered a temporary injunction stopping construction, reasoning broadly that an owner may not use property to injure another.

## Issues

1. Whether a neighboring landowner has a legally protected right to unobstructed light and air across adjacent property absent an express agreement or recognized easement.
2. Whether Eden Roc established an enforceable easement of light and air by express grant, implication, prescription, or statute.
3. Whether a useful hotel addition can be enjoined as a private nuisance or “spite structure” based on alleged malicious motive and resulting shadows.
4. Whether an alleged setback-ordinance violation, on this record, supported a private injunction halting construction.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the temporary injunction and remanded with directions to dissolve it.
- The court held that, absent an enforceable easement or agreement, Eden Roc had no legal right to prevent Fontainebleau from constructing a building that reduced sunlight, air, or view.
- The addition served a substantial, legitimate business purpose, defeating the claim that it was an actionable “spite” structure.
- Eden Roc did not show a sufficient legal basis for broad injunctive relief based on the asserted ordinance/setback theory.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner has no legal right to the free flow of light and air across adjoining land in the absence of an express agreement or a recognized easement.
- A structure that serves a useful and beneficial purpose is not subject to damages or injunction merely because it cuts off light and air or interferes with a neighbor’s view.
- Allegations of malice do not convert an otherwise lawful, beneficial improvement into an enjoinable nuisance where the improvement is not useless and is built for legitimate ends.
- Easements restricting a neighbor’s building rights must be proven through recognized doctrines (typically express grant; limited circumstances for implication), and courts will not create broad negative easements for light and air by implication.

## Conclusion

The court dissolved the injunction because Eden Roc failed to establish any enforceable property right to sunlight, air, or view over Fontainebleau’s land, and the challenged addition was a legitimate, beneficial hotel improvement not actionable as a nuisance or spite structure on the record presented.


Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1959)