Lubrano v. Macauley

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lubrano v. Macauley

125 So. 2d 911, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 3104

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1961

DocketNo. 1935

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 125 So. 2d 911 (Lubrano v. Macauley) 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

Lubrano v. Macauley, 125 So. 2d 911, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 3104 (Fla. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

MORROW, Associate Judge.

The appellants were plaintiffs below and brought ejectment against the defendants, and the case was tried without jury before the trial court. The trial judge found that the plaintiffs had established a valid record title, subject to defeasance only by the defendants proving adverse possession. The court further found that the defendants had proved adverse possession and were entitled to their respective portions of a thirty foot strip of land, which was the subject of litigation. The questions presented were whether or not the evidence supported, first, the establishment of adverse possession, and seconcf, the establishment of a boundary by acquiescence,

If the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the verdict and the judgment of the trial court, the same will not be disturbed on [912]*912appeal. An examination of the testimony and exhibits in evidence discloses not only that the trial court could have found the verdict reached, but should have so found. Not only have the defendants and their predecessors in title established adverse possession for the statutory period of seven years to the contested lands, but the evidence also discloses that a boundary by acquiescence has been established. F.S.A. § 95.16.

Finding no error in the verdict and judgment of the trial court, the same are affirmed.

Affirmed,

KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.

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

MORROW, Associate Judge.

The appellants were plaintiffs below and brought ejectment against the defendants, and the case was tried without jury before the trial court. The trial judge found that the plaintiffs had established a valid record title, subject to defeasance only by the defendants proving adverse possession. The court further found that the defendants had proved adverse possession and were entitled to their respective portions of a thirty foot strip of land, which was the subject of litigation. The questions presented were whether or not the evidence supported, first, the establishment of adverse possession, and seconcf, the establishment of a boundary by acquiescence,

If the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the verdict and the judgment of the trial court, the same will not be disturbed on [912]*912appeal. An examination of the testimony and exhibits in evidence discloses not only that the trial court could have found the verdict reached, but should have so found. Not only have the defendants and their predecessors in title established adverse possession for the statutory period of seven years to the contested lands, but the evidence also discloses that a boundary by acquiescence has been established. F.S.A. § 95.16.

Finding no error in the verdict and judgment of the trial court, the same are affirmed.

Affirmed,

KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 So. 2d 911, 1961 Fla. App. LEXIS 3104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubrano-v-macauley-fladistctapp-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack