Crooms v. Crawford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crooms v. Crawford

837 So. 2d 512, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 723, 2003 WL 160847

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 24, 2003·No. No. 2D02-1060·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

COVINGTON, Judge.

Harold and Maudie Crooms, plaintiffs below, challenge the trial court’s order granting Lucille Crawford’s motion for summary judgment. In its order, the trial court concluded that the easement for ingress and egress located on Mrs. Crawford’s property was extinguished by virtue of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA), Chapter 712, Florida Statutes (2001). On appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Crooms submit that it was error for the trial court to have applied MRTA. We agree. See Holland v. Hattaway, 438 So.2d 456, 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

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

COVINGTON, Judge.

Harold and Maudie Crooms, plaintiffs below, challenge the trial court’s order granting Lucille Crawford’s motion for summary judgment. In its order, the trial court concluded that the easement for ingress and egress located on Mrs. Crawford’s property was extinguished by virtue of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA), Chapter 712, Florida Statutes (2001). On appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Crooms submit that it was error for the trial court to have applied MRTA. We agree. See Holland v. Hattaway, 438 So.2d 456, 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

Crooms v. Crawford, 837 So. 2d 512, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 723, 2003 WL 160847 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

837 So. 2d 512 (Crooms v. Crawford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related