FLORIDA ACTION FILMS, INC., TED VERNON SPECIALTY AUTOMOBILES, INC., TED VERNON AND ESTATE MARKETING, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
GREEN EAST # 2, LTD., APPELLEE
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 held that the express easement was unambiguous, no easement by necessity was proved, and the injunction against trespass was proper.
Appellants appealed a Final Judgment interpreting an easement in a deed and enjoining their trespass. The trial court found the express easement unamb…
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 Easement By Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND CLARIFICATION
The appellees have filed motions for clarification and rehearing in connection with the opinion issued by this Court on December 2, 2009. We deny the motion for rehearing, but grant clarification, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute this corrected opinion in its stead.
Florida Action Films, Inc., Ted Vernon Specialty Automobiles, Inc., Ted Vernon, and Estate Marketing, Inc. appeal from a Final Judgment interpreting and enforcing an easement in a 1935 deed. We agree with the trial court that the express easement is unambiguous and accords only an easement of ingress and egress extending only from the northern border of the parcel conveyed in 1935 to 79th Street on the south. We also agree that no easement by way of necessity over Appellee, Green East # 2 Ltd.’s property has been proved to exist.1 Lastly, we agree that the court below properly enjoined the Appellants herein from their admittedly continuing trespass on Green East’s property. See Autozone Stores, Inc. v. Northeast Plaza Venture, LLC, 934 So.2d 670, 673 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (confirming that an injunction is an appropriate remedy for a continuous or repeated trespass); Overstreet v. Lamb, 128 So.2d 897, 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (recognizing injunctive relief as an appropriate remedy for “a continuing trespass on land”).
Accordingly, the order on appeal is, in all respects, affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pelican Creek Homeowners, LLC v. Pulverenti, 243 So. 3d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Annex Indus. Park, LLC v. Corner Land, LLC, 206 So. 3d 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
Authorities Cited
- Autozone Stores, Inc. v. Ne. Plaza Venture, LLC., 934 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Lafy Abdo v. City OF Daytona Beach, 128 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Overstreet v. Lamb, 128 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)