WILLIAM M. GUTTMAN AND SUSAN G. GUTTMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM P. VANNECK; 210 WEST INDIES DRIVE, LLC.; CHRISTIAN R. ODASSO; AND MICHAEL A. VECELLIO, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed that setback requirements on the appellants' property are enforceable negative easements not extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act, but struck as obiter dicta any findings affecting other properties with a common root of title.
Setback requirements for appellants' property constitute enforceable negative easements not extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act.
[1] Setback requirements may constitute negative easements enforceable against successors in title and are not extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act when they appea…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants owned property subject to setback requirements. The trial court issued a final judgment addressing whether these setback requirements had b…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Setback Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final judgment to the extent that it holds that the set-back requirements (SBR) for appellants’ property — which we agree are properly deemed negative easements — have not been extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act1 and are otherwise enforceable.
We treat as obiter dicta — and thus of no force or effect — any findings or conclusions in the final judgment to the effect that the 35-feet SBR has been extinguished or is unenforceable as to any other properties sharing a^ common root of title with appellants.2 See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Cummings, 930 So.2d 604 (Fla.2006) (final decree affecting interests of parties not joined in suit is wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience); Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So.2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (court lacks jurisdiction to issue decree interfering with rights of those not parties to action).
Affirmed as modified.
POLEN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Revenue v. James (Willie) Cummings, 930 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2006)
- Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)