RICHARD A. CALVERT, ET UX., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
SIDNEY L. MORGAN, ET UX., 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.
In this declaratory judgment action, the court affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine boundary rights in an abandoned right-of-way, and that the boundary between two properties should be set at the centerline of the former right-of-way under the rule established in Smith v. Horn.
The trial court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief because the parties' rights in the property were in doubt and needed to be clarified. The Smith v. Horn rule correctly applies, establishing the boundary at the centerline of the abandoned right-of-way.
[1] A trial court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief when a party is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of a right and is entitled to have that doubt remo…
[2] A trial court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief concerning property boundary disputes affected by the abandonment of a right of way.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To trigger jurisdiction under this section, the moving party must demonstrate that he is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of some right and that he is entitled to have such doubt removed.”
Establishes the standard for jurisdiction under the declaratory judgment statute (section 86.011)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendants own several lots fronting Spanish Point Drive in Jacksonville, and plaintiffs own several lots fronting Tontine Road. The rear property…
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 Boundary Line Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
The issues in this declaratory judgment action are whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief and whether the rule set forth in Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435 (1915), applies to the facts of this case. Judgment was entered for the plaintiffs (appellees) and the defendants (appellants) appeal.
The defendants are the owners of several lots of land fronting on Spanish Point Drive in Jacksonville, while the plaintiffs are the owners of several lots fronting on Tontine Road. The rear property lines of both sets of lots are separated by a thirty foot right of way which is the subject of this lawsuit.
All of the land in question was at one time owned by the Woodham Corporation. Woodham began developing lots for sale, and on 14 August 1961, it filed a plat for the Spanish Point Drive property in the public records of Duval County. On that plat, it was noted that a thirty-foot right of way contiguous with and located immediately to the north of the lots was irrevocably and without reservation dedicated to the City of Jacksonville for drainage and utilities purposes.
Subsequently, Woodham’s successor in title developed the Tontine Road property. A plat of that property was filed in the public records of Duval County on 22 March 1976.
After the City of Jacksonville passed an ordinance on 22 September 1980 abandoning the right of way, the plaintiffs brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment as to their rights in the strip of land. They contended that they owned all the land up to the center line of the former right of way, while the defendants claimed ownership of the entire strip. The trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and entered judgment accordingly.
Defendants contend that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under Section 86.011, Florida Statutes (1979). This contention is without merit. To trigger jurisdiction under this section, the moving party must demonstrate that he is in doubt as to the existence or nonexistence of some right and that he is entitled to have such doubt removed. Flagship Beal Estate Corp. v. Flagship Banks, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). As the disposition of this right of way affected the boundary line to the Tontine Road lots, the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief.
On the merits, the trial court correctly applied the rule of Smith v. Horn, supra, in setting the boundary between the two sets of lots at the center line of the abandoned right of way.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joseph v. Duran, 436 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…abutting the lots. Servando Building Company v. Zimmerman, 91 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1956); and Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435 (1915). The fact that the alley had been vacated prior to the conveyance does not alter this result. Calvert v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See, also, Greenberg v. L.I. Snodgrass Co., 161 Ohio St. 351, 119 N.E. 2d 292, 49 A.L.R.2d 974 (1954). Finally, the trial court correctly ruled that the parole evidence rule precluded appellants from introducing evidence concern…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1915)
- Flagship Real Est. Corp. v. Flagship Banks, Inc., 374 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)