Dorsey v. Behm

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dorsey v. Behm

356 So. 2d 345, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1978

DocketNo. GG-336

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 356 So. 2d 345 (Dorsey v. Behm) 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

Dorsey v. Behm, 356 So. 2d 345, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

MILLS, Judge.

Appellants appeal from a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of appellees in a declaratory judgment action. The issue here is whether the trial court erred in entering the judgment on the pleadings. It did not err and we affirm.

Appellants alleged in their complaint that the Behms (appellees) deeded a site in Char-Lar Estates to Dorsey (appellant) and prior to and subsequent to the transfer of the property to Dorsey orally represented to him that he as well as other nonwaterfront owners would be entitled to exclusive use of a pier and adjacent real property together with the boat basin and surrounding area. Attached to the complaint was a Grant of Easement which gave Dorsey the right to use the boat basin. Also attached to the complaint was a Quitclaim Deed To Pier which quitclaimed the Behms’ interest in a pier in Crescent Lake to the Edmistons, Raulersons and Weidenhof (appellees). Appellants sought a declaration of their right to use the pier and adjacent real property together with the boat basin and surrounding area because appellees had denied them these rights.

Appellees answered admitting the right of appellants to use the boat basin but denying their right to use the pier. They then moved for judgment on the pleadings which the trial court granted without giving its reasons. Although not pled, without objection, appellees argued orally and by written memorandum that the alleged oral promise to create an easement was barred by the statute of frauds.

Not only do appellees admit that appellants are entitled to use of the boat basin but the Grant of Easement clearly and unambiguously gives them this right, thus, there is no dispute on this issue.

Not only do the allegations of the complaint fail to describe the pier in question but an oral promise to create an easement violates the statute of frauds. Section 725.-01, Florida Statutes (1975), and Florida Real Property Practice I, page 584. There is no dispute on this issue.

[346]*346The pleadings raising no disputed issues, the court properly granted judgment on the pleadings.

The judgment is affirmed.

McCORD, C. J., concurs. BOYER, J., dissents.

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

MILLS, Judge.

Appellants appeal from a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of appellees in a declaratory judgment action. The issue here is whether the trial court erred in entering the judgment on the pleadings. It did not err and we affirm.

Appellants alleged in their complaint that the Behms (appellees) deeded a site in Char-Lar Estates to Dorsey (appellant) and prior to and subsequent to the transfer of the property to Dorsey orally represented to him that he as well as other nonwaterfront owners would be entitled to exclusive use of a pier and adjacent real property together with the boat basin and surrounding area. Attached to the complaint was a Grant of Easement which gave Dorsey the right to use the boat basin. Also attached to the complaint was a Quitclaim Deed To Pier which quitclaimed the Behms’ interest in a pier in Crescent Lake to the Edmistons, Raulersons and Weidenhof (appellees). Appellants sought a declaration of their right to use the pier and adjacent real property together with the boat basin and surrounding area because appellees had denied them these rights.

Appellees answered admitting the right of appellants to use the boat basin but denying their right to use the pier. They then moved for judgment on the pleadings which the trial court granted without giving its reasons. Although not pled, without objection, appellees argued orally and by written memorandum that the alleged oral promise to create an easement was barred by the statute of frauds.

Not only do appellees admit that appellants are entitled to use of the boat basin but the Grant of Easement clearly and unambiguously gives them this right, thus, there is no dispute on this issue.

Not only do the allegations of the complaint fail to describe the pier in question but an oral promise to create an easement violates the statute of frauds. Section 725.-01, Florida Statutes (1975), and Florida Real Property Practice I, page 584. There is no dispute on this issue.

[346]*346The pleadings raising no disputed issues, the court properly granted judgment on the pleadings.

The judgment is affirmed.

McCORD, C. J., concurs. BOYER, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 So. 2d 345, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 15478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsey-v-behm-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack