Morris v. Garcia

224 So. 3d 268, 2017 WL 2960732, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9978
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Morris v. Garcia. Read the opinion of the Court — 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 1809
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 12, 2017·No. Nos. 3D16-1517 & 3D16-1379·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We agree with the trial court that, rather than their possessing a non-exclusive easement that would survive partition, the ten owners of the Dolphin Estates residential lots each own an undivided l/49th interest in the property known as the Beach Area and the Access Canal (the “Property”). Similarly, rather than his holding an easement1 in the Property, Omar Garcia, as tenant in common with the Dolphin Estates homeowners, owns the remaining 39/49th undivided interest. While this odd arrangement might not have reflected the grantors’ intent, nevertheless it is the arrangement reflected by the respective deeds granting the parties their interests in the Property.

Affirmed.

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

Morris v. Garcia, 224 So. 3d 268, 2017 WL 2960732, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9978 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

224 So. 3d 268 (Morris v. Garcia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

One Harbor Financial Ltd. v. Hynes Prop.
884 So. 2d 1039 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)