PERRY KOSTIDAKIS AND HELEN F. KOSTIDAKIS, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CRAIG STRACENER AND INEZ STRACENER, 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.
An award of more than nominal damages for interference with an easement is improper without proof of specific pecuniary loss or other damage.
Appellees were awarded damages for interference with an easement. The interference caused inconvenience but no specific pecuniary loss or other damage…
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 Pecuniary Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment granting a permanent injunction and damages to appellees for interference with an easement. We affirm the judgment as to the injunction but reduce the damage award.
The question we consider here is whether an award of $2,000 for blockage of an easement is proper where no specific pecuniary loss was shown. If there is interference with an easement, the law will presume some damage and no special or actual pecuniary loss need be shown. Where no physical or financial injury has been inflicted, the easement owner may recover only nominal damages. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 122. See Lassitter v. International Union of Operating Engineers, 349 So. 2d 622 (Fla.1977).
In the case before us, there was no pecuniary loss or other damage, only a showing of inconvenience. In the absence of proof, an award of anything more than nominal damages was improper. Therefore, the award of damages is reduced to $1.00.
AFFIRMED in part and AMENDED in part.
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.