They assert, however, that because Appellant is not prevented from abiding by the restrictions as a result of the change in circumstances, it failed to state a cause of action for their removal. In support of their prevention argument, Appellees cite Essenson v. Polo Club Associates, 688 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) and Victorville West Limited Partnership v. Inverrary Association, Inc. , 226 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Yet, neither opinion states that a party must be prevented from adhering to a restrictive covenant in order for the party to seek the removal or cancellation of such.