SILAS GIBSON ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
L. L. RATCLIFF ET AL., 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 held that summary judgment was improper because material issues of fact existed regarding the validity of a resurvey and the appellants' standing and the appellees' estoppel defense.
This case involves a boundary dispute concerning property in Okaloosa County, adjacent to property in a prior case. The dispute centers on the effect …
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 Boundary Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We here review a summary judgment arising out of a boundary dispute. The property involved is located in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 26, Township 1 South, Range 24 West in Okaloosa County and is adjacent to the property involved in Gibson v. Wright, Fla.App. 1st 1965, 179 So. 2d 245. The original government survey was made in 1826. In 1937 a resurvey was completed. As this Court stated in Gibson v. Wright, supra:
“The 1937 United States Survey could not alter the property lines and property rights acquired under an existing United States Government Survey of a prior date.” (179 So. 2d at page 247) Our examination of the record in this case reveals that there is an issue of fact as to whether the 1937 survey re-established the section lines and corners as originally established in 1826 or whether there is a discrepancy. That issue is material and could not have been properly resolved by summary judgment. There are also issues of material facts relating to appellants’ standing to bring the action giving rise to this appeal and as to the defense of estoppel asserted by appellees.
The law relating to summary judgments is well established in Florida and no useful purpose will be accomplished by recitation here. (See Connell v. Sledge, Fla.App. 1st 1975, 306 So. 2d 194)
We express no view as to resolution of this case on the merits.
REVERSED.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD and MILLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Grady Scott Connell v. Sledge, 306 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Silas Gibson v. Wright, 179 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)