Antoniadis v. EARCA, NV

442 So. 2d 1001
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 15, 1983
Docket82-2667
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 442 So. 2d 1001 (Antoniadis v. EARCA, NV) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Antoniadis v. EARCA, NV, 442 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

442 So.2d 1001 (1983)

Yiannis B. ANTONIADIS, Appellant,
v.
EARCA, N.V., Interdevco Grove Square, Inc. and Walter Mobley, Appellees.

No. 82-2667.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

November 15, 1983.
Rehearing Denied January 20, 1984.

Steven R. Berger and Theodore J. Fournaris, Miami, and Sara Lawrence, Hollandale, for appellant.

Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Colan & Simon and Stanley B. Price and Sara B. Herald and Linda Ann Wells, Miami, for appellees.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment under review is affirmed upon the main appeal as the closing of the private alley herein was amply justified based on this record and the applicable law, whether the relevant plat restriction be considered a restrictive covenant or an easement. See Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976); Board of Public Instruction of Dade County v. Town of Bay Harbor Islands, 81 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1955); Powers v. Scobie, 60 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1952); Barton v. Moline Properties, Inc., 121 Fla. 683, 694, 164 So. 551, 556 (1935); Sewell v. Burdine, 80 Fla. 718, 87 So. 143 (1920).

We must reverse the final judgment, however, on the cross-appeal as the award of parking spaces to the appellant [in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the relief ordered in the final judgment] was entirely unrelated to the subject matter of this lawsuit and therefore was outside the scope of the trial judge's admittedly broad powers to do equity in this cause; indeed, appellant's need for such parking spaces existed even if the private alley had not been closed in this case and arose entirely due to circumstances unconnected with this case. As such, the trial court lacked the authority to fashion this parking space remedy which was not raised by any of the pleadings, was not tried by consent, and was unrelated to the subject matter of the lawsuit. See Kornbluh v. Lowenberg, 401 So.2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Pond v. McKnight, 339 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

The final judgment is therefore affirmed in all respects except for paragraphs 6 and 7 of the relief ordered therein (R. 174) which paragraphs are hereby stricken therefrom.

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Sea Vault Partners v. Bermello, Ajamil & Partners
274 So. 3d 473 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019)
Corin v. Goldberg
829 So. 2d 943 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Milio v. LEINOFF AND SILVERS, PA
668 So. 2d 1108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Gold v. M & G Services, Inc.
491 So. 2d 1297 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Miceli v. Gilmac Developers, Inc.
467 So. 2d 404 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
442 So. 2d 1001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antoniadis-v-earca-nv-fladistctapp-1983.