Sanlando Machining, Inc. v. Suncrete Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sanlando Machining, Inc. v. Suncrete Corp.

545 So. 2d 329, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1154, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2576, 1989 WL 48095

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1620

StatusPublished

This text of 545 So. 2d 329 (Sanlando Machining, Inc. v. Suncrete Corp.) 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

Sanlando Machining, Inc. v. Suncrete Corp., 545 So. 2d 329, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1154, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2576, 1989 WL 48095 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a property boundary dispute. The trial court determined that appellants’ property should be surveyed from the center of the streets abutting the property. We find this to be error.

The description in the instrument conveying the property determines the boundaries of the property. Appellants’ deed reads:

The North 150 feet of the West 200 feet, Block 69, M.M. Smith Subdivision, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, page 55, Seminole County Public Records.

Appellants’ land description is specifically excluded from appellees’ land description which is:

Block 69, M.M. SMITH SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof as record in Plat Book 1, Page 55, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; less the south 200 feet thereof; and also less the north 10 feet of the east 270 feet thereof; and also less the north 150 feet of the west 200 feet thereof; and also less road rights of way.

The deeds do not describe the property by reference to the streets and the streets are not identified as the boundaries for the block. The block is established by the recorded subdivision plat which clearly shows the boundaries of Block 69 at the sideline of the street, not the center. See 1 Fla. Jur.2d Adjoining Landowners § 28 pp. 481-482; see also Dial Communications, Inc. v. Hurst, 536 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (plat depicts lot boundary lines as starting at the easement boundary at the edge of the streets). Appellants are entitled to a final judgment in their favor because the northwest corner of their lot is the northwest comer of Block 69 as depicted on the plat and their lot should be sur[330]*330veyed from the sidelines of the streets abutting Block 69.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment in a property boundary dispute. The trial court determined that appellants’ property should be surveyed from the center of the streets abutting the property. We find this to be error.

The description in the instrument conveying the property determines the boundaries of the property. Appellants’ deed reads:

The North 150 feet of the West 200 feet, Block 69, M.M. Smith Subdivision, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, page 55, Seminole County Public Records.

Appellants’ land description is specifically excluded from appellees’ land description which is:

Block 69, M.M. SMITH SUBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof as record in Plat Book 1, Page 55, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida; less the south 200 feet thereof; and also less the north 10 feet of the east 270 feet thereof; and also less the north 150 feet of the west 200 feet thereof; and also less road rights of way.

The deeds do not describe the property by reference to the streets and the streets are not identified as the boundaries for the block. The block is established by the recorded subdivision plat which clearly shows the boundaries of Block 69 at the sideline of the street, not the center. See 1 Fla. Jur.2d Adjoining Landowners § 28 pp. 481-482; see also Dial Communications, Inc. v. Hurst, 536 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (plat depicts lot boundary lines as starting at the easement boundary at the edge of the streets). Appellants are entitled to a final judgment in their favor because the northwest corner of their lot is the northwest comer of Block 69 as depicted on the plat and their lot should be sur[330]*330veyed from the sidelines of the streets abutting Block 69.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 329, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1154, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2576, 1989 WL 48095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanlando-machining-inc-v-suncrete-corp-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack