CHARLES PIPPIN, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES M. PARKER AND FRANCES PARKER, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Boundary By Acquiescence cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
This cause is before us on appeal from a final judgment in which the trial court, employing the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence, established a boundary line between land owned by Pippin and land owned by Parker. In order to establish a boundary by acquiescence, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a dispute from which it can be implied that both parties are in doubt as to the boundary; and (2) continued occupation and acquiescence in a line other than the true boundary for a period of more than the statute of limitations. King v. Carden, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). We find the evidence presented here sufficient to satisfy both elements.
Moreover, the trial court did not err in refusing to rule on the accuracy of two surveys which were introduced at trial. The true government survey line need not be established before finding a boundary by acquiescence. Williams v. Johntry, 214 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ophelia M. Franklin v. Gibbs, 507 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…that the true boundary is in doubt, and (2) continued occupation and acquiescence in a line other than the true boundary for a period longer that the statute of limitations. McDonald v. O’Steen, 429 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Pippin v. Parker, 427 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); King v. Carden, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970). In the instant case, although there was some evidence of a dispute between the Gibbses and the Franklins as to the ownership of the strip, the evidence fell far short of showing…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Thelma E. Johntry and her husband, 214 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Von King v. Carden, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)
- Williams v. State, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)