With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Kilgore v. Killearn Homes Ass’n, 676 So.2d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Reasonable, unambiguous restrictions are commonly made and enforced according to the intent of the parties. See Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Wilder Corp. of Del., 876 So.2d 652 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Barrett v. Leiher, 355 So.2d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The building restriction one under which a tract of land is divided into budding lots, to be sold to purchasers by deeds containing uniform restrictions.” Id. The record in this case shows that there was no general building scheme involving mutual covenants. In fact, the parties stipulated that Mr. Spivey “did not establish a uniform plan or scheme of development or improvement as to the parcels currently owned by the Plaintiffs, Louis A. Fiore Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (<HOLDING>); Glades Oil Co. v. R.A.I. Mgmt., Inc., 510

A: holding that trial court may not grant summary judgment on ground not presented by movant in writing
B: holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion
C: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
D: holding that an appellate court may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground appearing in the record even if the circuit court did not rely on it
B.