Boyd v. Lane

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boyd v. Lane

335 So. 2d 324, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13867

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1976

DocketNo. X-50

StatusPublished

This text of 335 So. 2d 324 (Boyd v. Lane) 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

Boyd v. Lane, 335 So. 2d 324, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13867 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinions

SMITH, Judge.

After a trial without a jury, the circuit court found that appellee Lane and those whose prior possession of the disputed land inured to her benefit had satisfied all requisites for the acquisition of title by adverse possession without color of title. Lane was thus found to have acquired title prior to June 5, 1939, when payment of taxes became an essential element of such claims. Ch. 19S24, § 1, Fla.Laws 1939; as amended, § 95.18(1), F.S.1975. The case is governed by § 4656, C.G.L.1927.¹ Defendant Boyd appeals from the judgment, asserting that the land claimed adversely was not sufficiently identified by the evidence and that the adversity of Lane’s claim was not proved. There was substantial competent evidence supporting Lane’s claim and the trial court’s finding that she and those with whom she was in privity actually occupied and claimed adversely the triangular parcel in question, and that it was substantially enclosed by fences built first of rails and then of wire. Irrespective of any irregularities in the description of the property by Lane’s complaint or in the survey map offered in evidence, the fence line which bound the property for five decades was ascertainable at the time of trial. There was no error in preparing an accurate description of the property from the then known or ascertainable boundary markers on the ground.

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS, J., concurs. BOYER, C. J., dissents.

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

SMITH, Judge.

After a trial without a jury, the circuit court found that appellee Lane and those whose prior possession of the disputed land inured to her benefit had satisfied all requisites for the acquisition of title by adverse possession without color of title. Lane was thus found to have acquired title prior to June 5, 1939, when payment of taxes became an essential element of such claims. Ch. 19S24, § 1, Fla.Laws 1939; as amended, § 95.18(1), F.S.1975. The case is governed by § 4656, C.G.L.1927.¹ Defendant Boyd appeals from the judgment, asserting that the land claimed adversely was not sufficiently identified by the evidence and that the adversity of Lane’s claim was not proved. There was substantial competent evidence supporting Lane’s claim and the trial court’s finding that she and those with whom she was in privity actually occupied and claimed adversely the triangular parcel in question, and that it was substantially enclosed by fences built first of rails and then of wire. Irrespective of any irregularities in the description of the property by Lane’s complaint or in the survey map offered in evidence, the fence line which bound the property for five decades was ascertainable at the time of trial. There was no error in preparing an accurate description of the property from the then known or ascertainable boundary markers on the ground.

AFFIRMED.

RAWLS, J., concurs. BOYER, C. J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

335 So. 2d 324, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 13867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-lane-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack