State, Department of Transportation v. Boat Center, Inc.

726 So. 2d 404, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2245, 1999 WL 104458
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 3, 1999
DocketNo. 98-0711
StatusPublished

This text of 726 So. 2d 404 (State, Department of Transportation v. Boat Center, 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. Boat Center, Inc., 726 So. 2d 404, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2245, 1999 WL 104458 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court determined that appellee was entitled to the reconveyance of an easement over property originally conveyed by appellee’s predecessor in title to Broward County under section 255.22, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994). While the trial court found conflict between certain subsections of section 255.22, it resolved those conflicts in favor of appellee. We agree with the trial court that there are conflicts between subsections (3) and (5) of the 1994 statute. In 1997, the Legislature repealed each of these subsections, so the issue of the conflicting sections is not likely to recur. See § 255.22, Fla. Stat. (1997) (effective date May 15, 1995). Therefore, an analysis of these conflicting-sections would have little precedential value. This matter, however, can be resolved in a more direct manner, as the decision of the trial court can be affirmed if the evidence supports an alternative theory supporting the reconveyance. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979). The subject easement was originally conveyed specifically “for a public road and/or other appropriate purposes incidental thereto,” and it was not used for that purpose. Subsection (4) of the statute provides that if the conveyance was “for the specific purpose of a street or sidewalk, the munici[405]*405pality’s or county’s failure to use the property gives rise to a conclusive presumption of abandonment.” Appellee was entitled to re-conveyance under this subsection of the statute.

Affirmed.

WARNER, KLEIN, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

Related

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
377 So. 2d 1150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
726 So. 2d 404, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 2245, 1999 WL 104458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-department-of-transportation-v-boat-center-inc-fladistctapp-1999.