Guttman v. Vanneck

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guttman v. Vanneck

15 So. 3d 813, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9992, 2009 WL 2168889

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 22, 2009

Docket4D08-2489

StatusPublished

This text of 15 So. 3d 813 (Guttman v. Vanneck) 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

Guttman v. Vanneck, 15 So. 3d 813, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9992, 2009 WL 2168889 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, J.

We affirm the final judgment to the extent that it holds that the set-back requirements (SBR) for appellants’ property — which we agree are properly deemed negative easements — have not been extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act 1 and are otherwise enforceable.

We treat as obiter dicta — and thus of no force or effect — any findings or conclusions in the final judgment to the effect that the 35-feet SBR has been extinguished or is unenforceable as to any other properties sharing a^ common root of title with appellants. 2 See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Cummings, 930 So.2d 604 (Fla.2006) (final decree affecting interests of parties not joined in suit is wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience); Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So.2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (court lacks jurisdiction to issue decree interfering with rights of those not parties to action).

Affirmed as modified.

POLEN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

1

. §§ 712.01-712.11, Fla. Stat. (2009).

2

. The parties had agreed that for purposes of MRTA, the setback requirements (SBR) for 16 of the 20 lots covered by the root of title do not appear in any “Muniments of Title” recorded in or after the originating conveyance for Brams Addition to the Town of Palm Beach. But the SBR does appear in the 4 lots which include appellants' lot 2.

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

FARMER, J.

We affirm the final judgment to the extent that it holds that the set-back requirements (SBR) for appellants’ property — which we agree are properly deemed negative easements — have not been extinguished by the Marketable Record Title Act 1 and are otherwise enforceable.

We treat as obiter dicta — and thus of no force or effect — any findings or conclusions in the final judgment to the effect that the 35-feet SBR has been extinguished or is unenforceable as to any other properties sharing a^ common root of title with appellants. 2 See Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Cummings, 930 So.2d 604 (Fla.2006) (final decree affecting interests of parties not joined in suit is wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience); Sheoah Highlands, Inc. v. Daugherty, 837 So.2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (court lacks jurisdiction to issue decree interfering with rights of those not parties to action).

Affirmed as modified.

POLEN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

1

. §§ 712.01-712.11, Fla. Stat. (2009).

2

. The parties had agreed that for purposes of MRTA, the setback requirements (SBR) for 16 of the 20 lots covered by the root of title do not appear in any “Muniments of Title” recorded in or after the originating conveyance for Brams Addition to the Town of Palm Beach. But the SBR does appear in the 4 lots which include appellants' lot 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 So. 3d 813, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9992, 2009 WL 2168889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guttman-v-vanneck-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack