Ingram v. Marsh

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ingram v. Marsh

517 So. 2d 31, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2536, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851, 1987 WL 1190

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 5, 1987

DocketNo. 87-368

StatusPublished

This text of 517 So. 2d 31 (Ingram v. Marsh) 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

Ingram v. Marsh, 517 So. 2d 31, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2536, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851, 1987 WL 1190 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEE, R.E., Jr., Associate Judge.

In this case the plaintiffs, Roger and Joan Ingram, sought a declaratory judgment as to the location of the northerly boundary of their property, which also constituted the southerly line of their adjacent neighbor, Thomas and Mary Marsh. The defendants Marsh filed no counterclaim for affirmative relief. After hearing testimony concerning the disputed boundary, the trial court determined its location favorable to the contention of the Marshes and ordered the parties to execute quit claim deeds to conform the record title to the trial court’s determined boundary.

We affirm the trial court’s adjudication of the common boundary line (paragraph one on page four of the judgment) but find that it was without jurisdiction to grant affirmative relief unrequested by the Marshes, hence reverse paragraphs two and three on pages four and five of the judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

LEE, R.E., Jr., Associate Judge.

In this case the plaintiffs, Roger and Joan Ingram, sought a declaratory judgment as to the location of the northerly boundary of their property, which also constituted the southerly line of their adjacent neighbor, Thomas and Mary Marsh. The defendants Marsh filed no counterclaim for affirmative relief. After hearing testimony concerning the disputed boundary, the trial court determined its location favorable to the contention of the Marshes and ordered the parties to execute quit claim deeds to conform the record title to the trial court’s determined boundary.

We affirm the trial court’s adjudication of the common boundary line (paragraph one on page four of the judgment) but find that it was without jurisdiction to grant affirmative relief unrequested by the Marshes, hence reverse paragraphs two and three on pages four and five of the judgment.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

517 So. 2d 31, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2536, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10851, 1987 WL 1190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-v-marsh-fladistctapp-1987.