Legal Opinion

230 East 7th Street Associates v. Wolkow Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided May 19, 2004No. 3D03-2563Published

1Per curiam

The appellant bases its claim to a vested right to intrude into the appellee’s easement on alleged adverse possession. Because we find, as a matter of law, that the record is insufficient to establish such a right, see Mumaw v. Roberson, 60 So.2d 741 (Fla.1952); Bentz v. McDaniel, 872 So.2d 978, 2004 WL 1058324 (Fla. 5th DCA May 7, 2004); Enos v. Casey Mountain, Inc., 532 So.2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So.2d 988 (Fla.1989); Kitzinger v. Gulf Power Co., 432 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and that any such right, even if it existed, was abandoned by the passage of more than…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mumaw v. RobersonSupreme Court of Florida · 1952
  2. Hale v. Miracle Enterprises Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1987
  3. Enos v. Casey Mountain, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
  4. Kitzinger v. Gulf Power Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  5. Bentz v. McDanielDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API