Prescriptive Easement

180 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• T.W. Tift, Jr. v. SAN Sebastian Harbor Project, LLC
  108 So. 3d 741· Fla. 5th DCA· 2013-03-08
  The court affirmed the trial court's denial of deeded and prescriptive easements for access to a traffic light, but reversed the finding that plaintiffs had any right to use the North/South Easement to a lift station, holding that plaintiffs failed to prove prescriptive rights or
• In & for New Castle Cnty. David S. Williams & Angelika M. Williams Civil Action No.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2009-03-13
  The court granted the Mannings' motion for remittitur, reducing the compensatory damages awarded to the Williams for trespass from $10,000 to $5,000 and the punitive damages from $100,000 to $50,000. The court denied the Mannings' motion for a new trial and denied all of the Will
• Modern, Inc. v. Florida
  444 F. Supp. 2d 1234· M.D. Fla.· 2006-08-15
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the common law flowage easement claim because its actions were aimed at restoring natural water flow, not interfering with it. The court also found that certain deed descriptions were too ambiguous to establish
• Perimeter Prop., Inc. v. The City OF Fort Lauderdale
  804 So. 2d 371· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-09-26
  Perimeter Property, Inc. appealed a quiet title and prescriptive easement case involving a strip of land called the "hiatus" near Hugh Taylor Birch State Park in Fort Lauderdale. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the hiatus does not exist and rejected the City of F
• Farish v. Murphy
  727 So. 2d 1120· Fla. 5th DCA· 1999-03-12
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment in a property dispute between neighbors concerning the placement of a fence and a strip of land.
• Cook v. The Proctor & Gamble Cellulose Co.
  648 So. 2d 180· Fla. 1st DCA· 1994-12-15
  A private party lacks standing to establish a public prescriptive easement where it has no claim in its own right and is motivated solely by its own commercial interests, and the evidence of use by only four individuals is insufficient to demonstrate substantial public use advers
• Colonial Acquisitions, Inc. v. Neva L. Titus
  636 So. 2d 877· Fla. 5th DCA· 1994-05-13
  The court held that the appellees were not entitled to an easement over appellant's property, as neither express, prescriptive, nor necessity easements were established.
• Cnty. OF Westchester v. Comm'r OF Transp. OF the State OF Conn.
  986 F.2d 624· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-06
  The court certified questions regarding prescriptive avigation and clearance easements to the Connecticut Supreme Court, finding the issues involved unsettled Connecticut property law.
• U.S. Drug Disc. Corp. v. Orestes Alvarez and Magdalena Alvarez
  591 So. 2d 1123· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-01-07
  The court held that a triable action lies for both an express easement due to a scrivener's error and a prescriptive easement, precluding summary judgment.
• Marchman v. Perdue
  543 So. 2d 1286· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-05-17
  The court held that while the appellant owns the disputed parcel, the trial court erred in enjoining him from blocking its use as a road, as the deed did not grant an easement.
• Louisville Title Ins. Co. v. Maone B. Guerard
  409 So. 2d 514· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-02-10
  Louisville Title Insurance appealed a summary judgment finding it had a duty to defend its insured against a prescriptive easement claim despite an exclusion for unrecorded easements in the title policy. The Fifth District reversed, holding that an insurer has no duty to defend w
• Kirchoff v. Moulder Bros., Inc.
  391 So. 2d 347· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-12-17
  Kirchoff appealed a judgment for trespass to realty after the trial court prematurely dismissed their affirmative defense of prescriptive easement on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The appellate court reversed, finding that the Kirchoffs adequately pled adversity of use
• N. Indialantic Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Bogue
  390 So. 2d 74· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-10-08
  The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a trial court order dismissing one count of a two-count complaint, holding that the order was not a final appealable order because both counts involved the same factual background and legal claims, making piecemeal app
• ST. JOE Paper Co. v. ST. Johns Cnty.
  383 So. 2d 915· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-03-11
  The court held that the county failed to establish compliance with Florida Statutes § 95.361 because its actions did not constitute 'construction' of the roadway as required by the statute.
• Wymbs v. Arvida Corp.
  48 Fla. Supp. 110· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1978-07-17
  In this class action bench trial, the court rejected plaintiffs' claims that members of the public had acquired prescriptive or customary rights to use footpaths and beach areas on privately owned beachfront property (Sabal Point) in Boca Raton. The court found that the claimed p
• The Nature Conservancy v. MacHipongo Club, Inc.
  571 F.2d 1294· 4th Cir.· 1978-03-02
  The court held that the deed did not convey a right-of-way and that the Coast Guard did not acquire a prescriptive easement for the beach access road, as the use was permissive.
• Sheffield v. City OF Tallahassee
  280 So. 2d 460· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-07-17
  The appellate court affirmed a trial court's finding that a city had acquired an easement for a power line through adverse possession but reversed a gratuitous statement by the trial court regarding future pole placement. The case clarifies the scope of easements acquired through
• Baltic Inv. Co. v. Perkins
  475 F.2d 964· D.C. Cir.· 1973-02-21
  The court held that the defendant established a prescriptive easement because the use was open, notorious, continuous, and adverse for the statutory period, and the plaintiff failed to present contradictory evidence.
• Esquire Ests., Inc. v. Krakow
  249 So. 2d 503· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-05-11
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding a party wall easement existed, as the facts did not support a claim of common law origin, prescriptive right, or presumed agreement.
• Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation v. Vulles
  437 F.2d 177· 9th Cir.· 1971-01-28
  The court held that the Tribes, through the continuous, open, notorious, exclusive, and adverse use of the road by its members, established an independent right of way by prescription for hunting, berry picking, and recreation, which the lower court erroneously denied.
• Grizzard v. City OF Leesburg
  34 Fla. Supp. 58· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-03-09
  Grizzard sued to establish the true boundary line of his property against a state road marker placed 50 feet from the road's center line, claiming the actual boundary was 30 feet from center. The court held that the public acquired only a 30-foot right-of-way by prescription, not
• Cnty. OF Sarasota v. Waters
  174 So. 2d 557· Fla. 2d DCA· 1964-12-16
  The County of Sarasota appealed a summary judgment in favor of landowners Waters and Perreault who sought to exclude the public from a 20-foot easement running through their property. The court reversed, finding that conflicting affidavits regarding whether the public used the ro
• Johnsen v. Mrs. C. Phelps Crosby
  288 F.2d 374· D.C. Cir.· 1960-12-15
• Gordon v. Norris
  10 Fla. Supp. 77· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1956-10-10
  Gordon seeks recognition and enforcement of a common law easement (way of necessity) over land owned by Norris. The court denies defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Florida common law recognizes rights of way by necessity, implication, express grant, and prescription, ind
• Walsh v. O'Dell
  6 Fla. Supp. 185· Sumter Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1954-05-17
  The court held that the road, used by the public for over twenty years, had acquired the status of a public road, and its closure by the landowner was unlawful.
• Marzo v. Seven Corners Realty, Inc.
  171 F.2d 144· D.C. Cir.· 1948-11-15
  Accepting a deed with a specifically described right of way bars a subsequent claim for a larger right of way by necessity. A prescriptive easement claim also failed due to insufficient allegations of use and adversity.
• Carley v. Lawrence
  170 F.2d 381· 7th Cir.· 1948-10-22
  A prescriptive easement for support in a party wall is not extinguished by the destruction of one building if the easement arose from an implied grant of necessity and the remaining wall can still provide support.
• N. Bay Shore Land Co. v. Mrs. Maggie Pollard
  99 Fla. 1287· Fla.· 1930-06-06
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree removing a cloud on title created by recorded plats that purported to subdivide the appellee's land and dedicate portions as public streets. The court found no valid dedication or easement had been established by the appellants, who cla
• Williams v. Hickson
  98 Fla. 544· Fla.· 1929-10-03
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to sustain a demurrer and dismiss a property owner's complaint seeking a mandatory injunction. The court found the second amended bill of complaint adequately alleged the requirements for establishing a prescriptive ease