Kovach v. Holiday Springs RV, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kovach v. Holiday Springs RV, LLC

223 So. 3d 1069, 2017 WL 1967803, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6817

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 12, 2017

DocketCase 5D15-2335

StatusPublished

This text of 223 So. 3d 1069 (Kovach v. Holiday Springs RV, LLC) 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

Kovach v. Holiday Springs RV, LLC, 223 So. 3d 1069, 2017 WL 1967803, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6817 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a summary judgment. construing an easement contained within a deed. Concluding that the trial court misconstrued the easement, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The easement in question conveys “to the said grantee, and grantee’s heirs and assigns forever the following described land, situate, lying and being in Hernando County, Florida, to-wit: An ingress/egress, utility, and drainage easement over the following described property.” Appellant is named as “grantee." The trial court concluded that this easement may only be used by Appellant as named grantee and no other person, including Appellant’s invitees. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court misconstrued our decision in City of Orlando v. MSD-Mattie, L.L.C., 895 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In that decision, we addressed an easement in gross where the grant was expressly confined to a limited use. Nothing in that decision supports the proposition that an easement that runs with the land may be used solely by the grantee. As a general proposition, the holder of an easement is entitled to use the easement “in a manner that is reasonably necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the servitude ... [including] normal development of the dominant estate.” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.10 (2000).

Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), upon which Appellee relies, is distinguishable. There, the easement stated that it was to be used “solely for the benefit of the owner or owners.” After making the threshold determination that it was ambiguous, our sister court then considered extrinsic evidence of what was originally intended and concluded that access by campground patrons exceeded the contemplated use as originally intended. Id. at 1143. Terrill v. Coe, 1 So.3d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), also relied upon by Appel-lee, reversed the trial court’s summary judgment because issues of fact precluded summary judgment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a summary judgment. construing an easement contained within a deed. Concluding that the trial court misconstrued the easement, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The easement in question conveys “to the said grantee, and grantee’s heirs and assigns forever the following described land, situate, lying and being in Hernando County, Florida, to-wit: An ingress/egress, utility, and drainage easement over the following described property.” Appellant is named as “grantee." The trial court concluded that this easement may only be used by Appellant as named grantee and no other person, including Appellant’s invitees. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court misconstrued our decision in City of Orlando v. MSD-Mattie, L.L.C., 895 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). In that decision, we addressed an easement in gross where the grant was expressly confined to a limited use. Nothing in that decision supports the proposition that an easement that runs with the land may be used solely by the grantee. As a general proposition, the holder of an easement is entitled to use the easement “in a manner that is reasonably necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the servitude ... [including] normal development of the dominant estate.” Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.10 (2000).

Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), upon which Appellee relies, is distinguishable. There, the easement stated that it was to be used “solely for the benefit of the owner or owners.” After making the threshold determination that it was ambiguous, our sister court then considered extrinsic evidence of what was originally intended and concluded that access by campground patrons exceeded the contemplated use as originally intended. Id. at 1143. Terrill v. Coe, 1 So.3d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008), also relied upon by Appel-lee, reversed the trial court’s summary judgment because issues of fact precluded summary judgment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, TORPY, and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 So. 3d 1069, 2017 WL 1967803, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kovach-v-holiday-springs-rv-llc-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack