SUNNY ISLES OCEAN BEACH COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ALFRED P. BENKE AND SAVERIO ACCIARITO, 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 appellate court affirmed a judgment for the defendant in an ejectment action, holding that the plaintiff's ownership of a lake bottom did not persist after selling the surrounding land.
No, ownership of the lake bottom does not remain with the former owner of the surrounding land after the surrounding property has been sold to others.
“Plaintiff's contention that he owned the part of the lake involved, and was entitled to its exclusive possession and use is without foundation in the law, because plaintiff's ownership of the lake when he held all of the property abutting thereon (Osceola County v. Triple E Development Co., Fla.1956, 90 So. 2d 600), did not remain in him when he sold to others the property surrounding the lake.”
This quote establishes the core legal principle that ownership of a lake bottom is lost when the surrounding land is sold.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff formerly owned land surrounding a lake and claimed ownership of the lake bottom. After selling the surrounding land, the defendant acqui…
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 Riparian Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict for the defendant in an ejectment action. The plaintiff formerly owned the land surrounding a small lake. At the time of his suit he no longer owned any bordering land, but contended that he continued to own the lake bottom. The defendant, who had acquired the property on the west and south sides of the lake, and an island in the lake, caused the west part of the lake lying between the shore and his island to be filled in. The ejectment action was directed at the part of the lake which had been filled in. Plaintiff’s contention that he owned the part of the lake involved, and was entitled to its exclusive possession and use is without foundation in the law, because plaintiff’s ownership of the lake when he held all of the property abutting thereon (Osceola County v. Triple E Development Co., Fla.1956, 90 So.2d 600), did not remain in him when he sold to others the property surrounding the lake. Duval v. Thomas, Fla.1959, 114 So.2d 791. See, also, Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 392; Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., Fla.1954, 69 So.2d 328; Duval v. Thomas, Fla.App.1958, 107 So.2d 148; Florio v. State ex rel. Epperson, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 305; Johnson v. Seifert, 257 Minn. 159, 100 N.W.2d 689 (citing Duval v. Thomas, supra).
Affirmed.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, CHAS., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sunny Isle Ocean Beach v. Benke, 132 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1961)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 126 So. 2d 307.…
Authorities Cited
- Florio v. State of Fla. ex rel. A. L. Epperson, 119 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1954)
- Duval v. Thomas, 114 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1959)
- Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950)
- Struck v. City OF Miami, 90 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1956)
- Duval v. Thomas, 107 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)