State Department of Transportation v. B & C Foods, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State Department of Transportation v. B & C Foods, Inc.

687 So. 2d 4, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11637, 1996 WL 637655

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 6, 1996

DocketNo. 96-0159

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 4 (State Department of Transportation v. B & C Foods, Inc.) 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

State Department of Transportation v. B & C Foods, Inc., 687 So. 2d 4, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11637, 1996 WL 637655 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the declaratory judgment requiring the City of Fort Lauderdale to reeonvey the easement at issue to McDonald’s Corporation pursuant to section 255.22, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). Even though McDonald’s is not the “grantor’s successor” within the meaning of section 255.22(5), it is still entitled to rely on subsection (3), which is made applicable by the last sentence of subsection (5). We hold that the language in the 1979 easement agreement that the easement was for “right of way purposes” was a “specified purpose or use” as contemplated by subsection (3). Fort Lauderdale neither used the easement for right of way purposes nor identified the proposed use of the easement in a comprehensive plan within ten years of the date of the conveyance. We construe a portion of subsection (3) to require the transferee municipality to identify a proposed use of transferred property in its own comprehensive plan. For this reason, the Department may not rely on Broward County’s comprehensive plan to avoid the application of subsection (3). We find no merit to the issues raised in the cross appeal.

AFFIRMED.

KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., and GERSTEN, CAROL R., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the declaratory judgment requiring the City of Fort Lauderdale to reeonvey the easement at issue to McDonald’s Corporation pursuant to section 255.22, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). Even though McDonald’s is not the “grantor’s successor” within the meaning of section 255.22(5), it is still entitled to rely on subsection (3), which is made applicable by the last sentence of subsection (5). We hold that the language in the 1979 easement agreement that the easement was for “right of way purposes” was a “specified purpose or use” as contemplated by subsection (3). Fort Lauderdale neither used the easement for right of way purposes nor identified the proposed use of the easement in a comprehensive plan within ten years of the date of the conveyance. We construe a portion of subsection (3) to require the transferee municipality to identify a proposed use of transferred property in its own comprehensive plan. For this reason, the Department may not rely on Broward County’s comprehensive plan to avoid the application of subsection (3). We find no merit to the issues raised in the cross appeal.

AFFIRMED.

KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., and GERSTEN, CAROL R., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 4, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11637, 1996 WL 637655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-transportation-v-b-c-foods-inc-fladistctapp-1996.