GENE FILARDO, APPELLANT,
v.
HORACE LAZO, SR., AND HIS WIFE, ANNA LAZO, AND JAMES EDWARD ROE AND HIS WIFE, HILDA LAZO ROE, 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.
Appellant's right-of-way easement was affirmed but amended from ten feet to fifteen feet to comply with Florida statutory standards for emergency vehicle access.
A way of necessity easement should be fifteen feet wide, not ten feet, to comply with Florida statutory requirements for emergency vehicle access.
[1] A way of necessity easement should be fifteen feet wide to comply with statutory standards for emergency vehicle access established in Chapter 65-1658, Laws of Florida.
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 intelligence“a frontage of fifteen feet shall presumptively be sufficient for that purpose”
Section 5 of Chapter 65-1658 defining 'access' for building permits and emergency vehicle ingress and egress
Appellant was granted a ten-foot right of way under Florida Statute § 704.01(1) for a way of necessity. Appellant appealed, arguing the easement shoul…
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 Implied Grant cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, was granted a ten foot right of way pursuant to Fla.Stat. § 704.01(1), F.S.A. which provides for an implied grant of a way of necessity.
Appellant complains here that the trial judge erred in granting a ten foot right of way rather than a fifteen foot right of way as prescribed in Chapter 65-1658, Laws of Florida. We agree with the granting of the easement but feel the Judgment should be amended to comply with the provision of Chapter 65-1658, providing as follows:
“Section 5. For the purpose of this act the word ‘access’ shall mean that the plot on which such structure is proposed to be erected directly abuts on such street or highway and has sufficient frontage thereon to allow the ingress and egress of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars and other emergency vehicles, and, a frontage of fifteen feet shall presumptively he sufficient for that purpose.” (Emphasis added.)
Although this Act relates to the issuance of building permits and to the County Commissioners regulatory powers in the development of property we deem it advisable that the above provision be a standard for the width of easements. The Judgment of the lower court should be amended to grant a fifteen foot easement instead of the ten foot one. The lower court is Ordered to amend its Judgment in this respect and as amended, the Judgment is
Affirmed.
PIERCE and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Little River Invs., Inc. v. Fowler, 266 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…in Pinellas County v. Furen, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 51; Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So. 2d 642; Bishop v. Wometco Enterprises, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 235 So. 2d 759. Appellant also urges that the opinion found in Filardo v. Lazo, Fla.App.1970, 241 So. 2d 869, requires the six-foot easement for an alley to be held void because it is less than fifteen feet in width. We do not find this applicable for several reasons: First, the opinion was based on a special act applicable only to Hillsborough County and,…