ARMANDO B. MARTINEZ AND ESTHER B. MARTINEZ, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN GIORDANO AND NANCY GIORDANO, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Martinez and Giordano families disputed access rights to the Martinez property. The trial court found an implied easement of way of necessity favoring the Giordanos and denied damages to both parties. The appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence supported the easement and neither party merited damages.
The court affirmed that the Giordanos had an implied grant of way of necessity over the Martinez property, that the evidence fully substantiated this claim, and that neither party was entitled to damages because the litigation should have been resolved more promptly after beginning in 1974.
[1] A way of necessity may be established by an implied grant under Florida law.
[2] Evidence can fully substantiate a claim for a way of necessity.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the evidence fully substantiates the Giordanos' claim and that appellant Martinezes' point directed to the existence of a way of necessity does not present reversible error”
The court's holding that the evidence supported the trial court's finding of an easement for way of necessity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Martinez and Giordano families engaged in a property access dispute that began in 1974, involving the erection of barricades and cutting of fences…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Implied Grant Of Way Of Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are presented with an appeal and a cross-appeal from a final judgment in which the trial judge found the existence of an easement for a way of necessity upon the property of the appellants, Armando B. Martinez and Esther B. Martinez, his wife. The fundamental question presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to establish a way of necessity under the law of the State of Florida. See Reyes v. Perez, 284 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); and Section 704.01, Florida Statutes (1973). In addition, both parties urge that the trial court erred in failing to grant to them damages.
The record reveals that this litigation over a right of access to the Martinez property has been in progress since 1974. The parties have, on occasion, resorted to self-help by the erection of barricades and the cutting of fences. The judgment in the present suit was entered after a non-jury trial, in which the court held that the Gior-danos had “an implied grant of way of necessity” over the Martinez property and that the Martinezes were permanently enjoined from blocking this right-of-way. It further held that neither party was entitled to damages.
Our review of the record reveals that the evidence fully substantiates the Giordanos’ claim and that appellant Martinezes’ point directed to the existence of a way of necessity does not present reversible error. In addition, we hold that appellants’ points claiming an error in the ruling on the evidence and in the allowing of a deposition to be introduced into evidence are without error. In their cross-appeal, the appellee Giordanos urge that the court erred in not allowing damages to them for the wrongful withholding over a period of time of the right of access. It appears to us that the court correctly determined that neither party is entitled to damages inasmuch as this litigation was begun in 1974 and should, by prompt attention thereto, have been terminated long before the present judgment.
We, therefore, hold that neither party has shown error upon a denial of its prayer for damages. Cf. the principle of law in McMichael v. McMichael, 158 Fla. 413, 28 So. 2d 692 (1947); Sahler v. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206, 17 So. 2d 105, 107 (1944).
Accordingly, the final judgment is affirmed upon the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meta A. Sahler v. Eli I. Sahler, 154 Fla. 206 (Fla. 1944)
- Reyes v. Perez, 284 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- McMichael v. McMichael, 158 Fla. 413 (Fla. 1947)