Immer v. Weintraub

413 So. 2d 47, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19486
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 16, 1982
DocketNo. 80-1231
StatusPublished

This text of 413 So. 2d 47 (Immer v. Weintraub) 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
Immer v. Weintraub, 413 So. 2d 47, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19486 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinions

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

As the owner of a non-abutting lot in the Moorings subdivision who was granted by dedication the right to the “use and enjoyment” of an artificial but navigable canal within the boundaries of the subdivision to the east of his property, the plaintiff-appellant Immer possessed no rights in or to the canal beyond those possessed by the public generally. Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission v. Lake Islands, Ltd., 407 So.2d 189 (Fla.1981); Silver Blue Lake Apts., Inc. v. Silver Blue Lake Home Owners Ass’n, 245 So.2d 609, 615 (Fla.1971) (Ervin, C. J., dissenting); 65 C.J.S. Navigable Waters § 1 (1966). Accordingly, he did not have standing to maintain the instant action, which complains that the defendants, who own parcels which are not within the subdivision, but which abut the canal on the opposite or east side, are improperly exercising riparian rights of access by maintaining docks and boats in the waterway. See Alden v. Pinney, 12 Fla. 348, 390 (1869); Sullivan v. Moreno, 19 Fla. 200, 220 (1882).1

The other plaintiff, the Moorings Property Owners Association, is an unincorporated association which itself owns no property whatever and thus all the more clearly may not assert such a claim. See United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9 (Fla.1974); Hemisphere Equity Realty Co., Inc. v. Key Biscayne Property Taxpayers Ass’n, 369 So.2d 996, 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).

On the sole ground of lack of standing— and specifically without deciding the substantive issue of whether the defendants in fact possess riparian rights to the canal— the judgment entered below is therefore

Affirmed.

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

Related

Game & Fresh Water Fish Com'n v. Lake Islands, Ltd.
407 So. 2d 189 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1981)
Hemisphere Equity Realty Co. v. KEY BISCAYNE, ETC.
369 So. 2d 996 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Bollinger v. Henry
375 S.W.2d 161 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1964)
United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc.
303 So. 2d 9 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
Silver Blue Lake Apts., Inc. v. Silver Blue Lake HO Ass'n
245 So. 2d 609 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)
City of Eustis v. Firster
113 So. 2d 260 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1959)
Montgomery v. Carlton
126 So. 135 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)
Alden v. Pinney
12 Fla. 348 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1868)
Sullivan v. Moreno
19 Fla. 200 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1882)
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Worley
49 Fla. 297 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1905)
Santa Monica Mountain Park Co. v. United States
306 U.S. 666 (Supreme Court, 1939)
Maytag Co. v. Hurley Machine Co.
306 U.S. 666 (Supreme Court, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 So. 2d 47, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/immer-v-weintraub-fladistctapp-1982.