Grable v. Peters

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Grable v. Peters

842 So. 2d 1070, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5741, 2003 WL 1917264

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-3638

StatusPublished

This text of 842 So. 2d 1070 (Grable v. Peters) 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

Grable v. Peters, 842 So. 2d 1070, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5741, 2003 WL 1917264 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Clark Randal Grable appeals an order denying him relief from a final order of summary judgment. This is a non-final appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5).

The complaint sought to establish the existence of an eight-foot easement across the back of appellees’ lots for the benefit of Grable’s lots. Initially, the trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of appellees, finding that any easement had been extinguished by the doctrine of merger. This summary judgment was per curiam affirmed on appeal. See Clark Randal Grable Trust v. Peters, 816 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Subsequently, Grable timely moved for relief from final judgment based on newly discovered evidence that, in a prior contract for sale, there was an express reservation of an eight-foot alley easement over several of the lots in question.¹ Based on this new evidence, we believe there is a genuine issue as to whether there exists an “easement” or “right-of-way” for an alley as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment order and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Clark Randal Grable appeals an order denying him relief from a final order of summary judgment. This is a non-final appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5).

The complaint sought to establish the existence of an eight-foot easement across the back of appellees’ lots for the benefit of Grable’s lots. Initially, the trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of appellees, finding that any easement had been extinguished by the doctrine of merger. This summary judgment was per curiam affirmed on appeal. See Clark Randal Grable Trust v. Peters, 816 So.2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Subsequently, Grable timely moved for relief from final judgment based on newly discovered evidence that, in a prior contract for sale, there was an express reservation of an eight-foot alley easement over several of the lots in question.¹ Based on this new evidence, we believe there is a genuine issue as to whether there exists an “easement” or “right-of-way” for an alley as alleged in the complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment order and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STEVENSON, SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

842 So. 2d 1070, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 5741, 2003 WL 1917264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grable-v-peters-fladistctapp-2003.