context: The Declaration specifically provided that the covenants and restrictions inured to the benefit of all lot owners. As a clearly intended beneficiary of the Declaration, Kirschner had the right to enforce the subdivision's restrictions.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 188 So.2d 9, 11
citation_a.parenthetical: well settled that residential lot owners are beneficiaries of restrictive covenants
citation_a.sentence: Osius v. Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862, 868 (1933) (restrictive covenants may be enforced by those who may be considered beneficiaries of covenants); see also Gercas v. Davis, 188 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (well settled that residential lot owners are beneficiaries of restrictive covenants); Batman v. Creighton, 101 So.2d 587, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (benefit of restrictive covenants inures to each purchaser in subdivision). The fact that the Declaration granted the POA power to enforce the restrictions did not eliminate Kirschner’s enforcement rights.
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 147 So. 862, 868
citation_b.parenthetical: restrictive covenants may be enforced by those who may be considered beneficiaries of covenants
citation_b.sentence: Osius v. Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862, 868 (1933) (restrictive covenants may be enforced by those who may be considered beneficiaries of covenants); see also Gercas v. Davis, 188 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (well settled that residential lot owners are beneficiaries of restrictive covenants); Batman v. Creighton, 101 So.2d 587, 590 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958) (benefit of restrictive covenants inures to each purchaser in subdivision). The fact that the Declaration granted the POA power to enforce the restrictions did not eliminate Kirschner’s enforcement rights.