Blowers v. Williams

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blowers v. Williams

360 So. 2d 1293, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16332

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 1978

DocketNo. II-301

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 360 So. 2d 1293 (Blowers v. Williams) 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

Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16332 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Substantial competent evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellee established a prescriptive easement along the border of appellant’s grove, for access to appellee’s interior land and grove. Downing v. Byrd, 100 So.2d 57 (Fla.1958); City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (Fla.1974). The trial court evidently found that appellee’s additional use of the easement, for access to and from a proposed dwelling, would not unreasonably increase the burden of the easement established for grove maintenance. Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So.2d 328 (Fla.1954). On this record we find no error in that decision, although neither the trial court’s judgment nor this one should be read as authorizing appellee to pave or otherwise improve the easement way in a manner detrimental to appellant’s adjacent grove. See Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Moore, 220 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage District, 223 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Substantial competent evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellee established a prescriptive easement along the border of appellant’s grove, for access to appellee’s interior land and grove. Downing v. Byrd, 100 So.2d 57 (Fla.1958); City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama, Inc., 294 So.2d 73 (Fla.1974). The trial court evidently found that appellee’s additional use of the easement, for access to and from a proposed dwelling, would not unreasonably increase the burden of the easement established for grove maintenance. Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So.2d 328 (Fla.1954). On this record we find no error in that decision, although neither the trial court’s judgment nor this one should be read as authorizing appellee to pave or otherwise improve the easement way in a manner detrimental to appellant’s adjacent grove. See Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Moore, 220 So.2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage District, 223 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

AFFIRMED.

BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 So. 2d 1293, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blowers-v-williams-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack