Campanella v. Shuford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Campanella v. Shuford

336 So. 2d 1257, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15448

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 1976

DocketNo. BB-337

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 336 So. 2d 1257 (Campanella v. Shuford) 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

Campanella v. Shuford, 336 So. 2d 1257, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15448 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant’s complaint sought a declaration of her rights in a disputed graded roadway along 410 feet on the southern boundary of her land. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant County Commission of Bradford County and adjoining landowners, holding that the county had maintained the road for more than the four-year prescriptive period, § 95.361, F.S.1975, to a width “set forth in the deposition of Leon Ellington,” the county road superintendent. Appellant contends that the record shows that there are disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment, and we agree. While the record reveals without dispute that the road in question was maintained for the prescriptive period, hence partial summary judgment on that issue would have been appropriate, Ellington’s deposition and the record as a whole are inconclusive on the question of the maximum width to which the roadway was continuously maintained. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate. Rule 1.510, R.C.P. The unresolved question must be settled by trial.

REVERSED.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

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

SMITH, Judge.

Appellant’s complaint sought a declaration of her rights in a disputed graded roadway along 410 feet on the southern boundary of her land. The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant County Commission of Bradford County and adjoining landowners, holding that the county had maintained the road for more than the four-year prescriptive period, § 95.361, F.S.1975, to a width “set forth in the deposition of Leon Ellington,” the county road superintendent. Appellant contends that the record shows that there are disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment, and we agree. While the record reveals without dispute that the road in question was maintained for the prescriptive period, hence partial summary judgment on that issue would have been appropriate, Ellington’s deposition and the record as a whole are inconclusive on the question of the maximum width to which the roadway was continuously maintained. Accordingly, summary judgment was not appropriate. Rule 1.510, R.C.P. The unresolved question must be settled by trial.

REVERSED.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 So. 2d 1257, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campanella-v-shuford-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack