TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
KEITH M. ROBERTS ET AL., 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.
Tortoise Island Communities appeals from an injunction preventing it from interfering with lot owners' canal easements across its island property. The court affirmed the injunction protecting the easement holders' right of passage but reversed the trial court's blanket prohibition on building any bascule bridge, holding that the servient estate owner may use its land in ways that do not materially interfere with easement rights.
The court affirmed the injunction protecting appellees' easement rights of passage but reversed the blanket prohibition on bridge construction. The servient estate owner may use its land, including the easement, so long as it does not materially interfere with the easement holders' right of passage. Tortoise Island should be permitted to demonstrate whether a bascule bridge could be constructed without materially interfering with the easement rights.
[1] An express easement grants the holder the right of free passage over the easement to the degree and amount originally contemplated by the parties.
[2] The owner of a servient estate may use their land, including an easement, in a manner that does not interfere with the easement owner's right of passage.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 rights of the owners of an easement over a "servient estate" are not absolute and unlimited. They are limited so that each party may reasonably enjoy his respective property rights.”
Establishes the foundational principle that easement rights must be balanced against the servient estate owner's property rights.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTortoise Island Communities owned an island through which the Moorings Cut canal crossed. Appellees were subdivision lot owners who held deeded easeme…
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 Dominant Estate cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Tortoise Island Communities, Inc., appeals from a judgment permanently enjoining it from interfering with appellees’ (a group of subdivision lot owners) canal easements which crossed the appellants’ island to give the appellees access to the Indian River. The canal, known as the Moorings Cut, was not appellees’ only access to the Indian River, but an easement over it had been expressly granted by a prior common grantor to each of them, and their deeds were of record. On appellants’ motion for clarification the trial court modified its judgment by adding a permanent injunction against appellants from building any kind of bascule bridge over the canal. We affirm the original judgment and reverse the modification.
The rights of the owners of an easement over a “servient estate” are not absolute and unlimited. They are limited so that each party may reasonably enjoy his respective property rights. Costin v. Branch, 373 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1190 (1980). The holder of a deeded or express easement has essentially the right of free passage over the easement to the degree and amount originally contemplated by the parties.1 The owner of the servient estate may, however, use his land, including the easement, in such a way that will not interfere with the easement owner’s right of passage. Butler v. Haley Greystone Corp., 352 Mass. 252, 224 N.E. 2d 683 (1967); Edwards v. Julian, 192 Pa.Super. 121, 159 A. 2d 547 (Pa. Super.1960); North Union Canal Co. v. Newell, 550 P. 2d 178 (Utah 1976).
The record in this case fails to show any basis to sustain the permanent injunction against any kind of bascule bridge under any circumstances. Florio v. State, 119 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornskein, 121 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). The appellants may be able to bridge the canal so as not to materially interfere with appellees’ easement rights, and they should not be foreclosed from making such a showing. The judgment is therefore
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1954); Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage District, 223 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Moorings Ass'n, Inc. v. Tortoise Island Cmtys., Inc., 460 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…easement. Canell holds that if the equitable cause of action is barred because the agreement is invalidated by the statute of frauds, the buyer cannot retreat to a legal remedy for money damages. . See Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).…
-
Dianne v. Adrian and Charline Wingate, 84 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…may use the land burdened by the easement in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the lawful dominant use. Hillsborough County v. Kortum, 585 [*430] So. 2d 1029, 1033 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So. 2d 568, 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). In the ease before us, the parties agree that a valid easement was created and recorded in 1999. To determine what rights were created by the easement agreement, we follow the rules of contract interpretation. Sandlake Res…
-
Sandlake Residences, LLC v. Ogilvie, 951 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…concluded that the gate constituted a substantial and impermissible interference with the dominant easement holders’ rights to use the easement, and affirmed the trial court’s order to remove the gate. Id. In Tortoise Island Communities v. Roberts, 394 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), a group of lot owners held a canal easement across an island, which provided them with access to the Indian River. The issue in the case was whether the island owner had the right to build any kind of bascule bridge over the can…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Florio v. State of Fla. ex rel. A. L. Epperson, 119 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1954)
- A. & P. Food Stores, Inc. v. Kornstein, 121 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage Dist., 223 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- White v. State, 223 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Costin v. Gilda Branch, 373 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)