Estate of Engskow v. Cullen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Estate of Engskow v. Cullen

428 So. 2d 388

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 28, 1983·No. No. 82-489·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly found that appellant failed to present competent substantial evidence of a boundary dispute or uncertainty, an essential element of appellant’s affirmative defenses to ejectment of boundary by agreement or boundary by acquiescence. See King v. Carden, 237 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Brooks v. Fletcher, 393 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Seddon v. Edmondson, 411 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of ejectment.

AFFIRMED.

HURLEY and DELL, JJ„ and H. MARK PURDY, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court properly found that appellant failed to present competent substantial evidence of a boundary dispute or uncertainty, an essential element of appellant’s affirmative defenses to ejectment of boundary by agreement or boundary by acquiescence. See King v. Carden, 237 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Brooks v. Fletcher, 393 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Seddon v. Edmondson, 411 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of ejectment.

AFFIRMED.

HURLEY and DELL, JJ„ and H. MARK PURDY, Associate Judge, concur.

Estate of Engskow v. Cullen, 428 So. 2d 388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

428 So. 2d 388 (Estate of Engskow v. Cullen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related