Krueger v. Bauer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Krueger v. Bauer

421 So. 2d 748, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22092

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 10, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1905

StatusPublished

This text of 421 So. 2d 748 (Krueger v. Bauer) 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

Krueger v. Bauer, 421 So. 2d 748, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22092 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Grantee under a warranty deed brought suit against the City of Stuart to quiet his title to a certain piece of property. He also sued his grantor for breach of warranty should the quiet title suit be unsuccessful. At issue was a parcel on a subdivision plat marked “parking.” The City of Stuart counterclaimed for quiet title and declaratory judgment.

We affirm the judgment quieting title in favor of the City since we find no meaningful distinction between this case and the case of Laube v. City of Stuart, 107 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), in which, on substantially similar facts, the court determined that an unmarked parcel on a similar plat, another portion of the same subdivision, was intended by the developer to be a part of the plat dedicated for roads and streets. The trial court’s finding of acceptance of dedication by general public user prior to revocation is supported by substantial competent evidence.

We also affirm that part of the judgment finding in favor of the grantee on the issue of liability of the grantor for breach of warranty and reserving for a separate hearing the issue of damages. However, we do not decide the proper measure of damages to be awarded to the grantee since that issue is not properly before us at this time.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The Grantee under a warranty deed brought suit against the City of Stuart to quiet his title to a certain piece of property. He also sued his grantor for breach of warranty should the quiet title suit be unsuccessful. At issue was a parcel on a subdivision plat marked “parking.” The City of Stuart counterclaimed for quiet title and declaratory judgment.

We affirm the judgment quieting title in favor of the City since we find no meaningful distinction between this case and the case of Laube v. City of Stuart, 107 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), in which, on substantially similar facts, the court determined that an unmarked parcel on a similar plat, another portion of the same subdivision, was intended by the developer to be a part of the plat dedicated for roads and streets. The trial court’s finding of acceptance of dedication by general public user prior to revocation is supported by substantial competent evidence.

We also affirm that part of the judgment finding in favor of the grantee on the issue of liability of the grantor for breach of warranty and reserving for a separate hearing the issue of damages. However, we do not decide the proper measure of damages to be awarded to the grantee since that issue is not properly before us at this time.

AFFIRMED.

GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr. (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 So. 2d 748, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22092, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krueger-v-bauer-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack