JOHN WILLIAM ST. CLAIR AND THELMA ELIZABETH ST. CLAIR, APPELLANTS,
v.
VICTOR S. SMITH AND MARY A. SMITH, 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 St. Clairs appealed a summary judgment favoring the Smiths in a property boundary dispute. The trial court ruled the Smiths owned adjacent property through adverse possession, had an easement by prescription, and that a long-standing fence constituted the agreed boundary. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court improperly weighed evidence and that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding adverse possession, the easement, and the fence boundary. The trial court improperly weighed the evidence presented, and summary judgment is not appropriate when material factual disputes remain.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist.
[2] A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“summary judgment is not a substitute for trial. A motion for summary judgment is only to be granted when it is shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact presented in the pleadings and other evidence before the trial court, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Establishes the legal standard for summary judgment and the court's holding that the trial court erred in applying it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Smiths, plaintiffs below, claimed ownership of real property in Pasco County, Florida through adverse possession without color of title, and sough…
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 Adverse Possession Without Color Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
The St. Clairs timely appeal from the trial court’s entry of a final summary judg ment in favor of the Smiths, the plaintiffs below. In granting the Smiths’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that the Smiths were owners in fee simple of real property situated in Pasco County, Florida, by virtue of adverse possession without color of title; title in the property was thereby quieted in the Smiths. The court found that the Smiths have an easement by prescription for ingress and egress over and across a portion of the St. Clairs’ adjacent property. It was also held that a fence which separates the lands of the parties “has been recognized and acquiesced in by all of the parties and their predecessors in title since at least the year 1922,” and the fence has become the boundary line between the respective parcels of the parties by acquiescence.
The Smiths raised various claims before the trial court. The St. Clairs disputed the claims and made various allegations supporting their own contentions. The trial court had before it, in addition to the pleadings, affidavits and depositions of the parties and several witnesses. Surveys of the property were presented, and challenged, as were aerial photographs. Similarly, factual issues were raised as to the existence and location of fences on the property, improvements made on the land, the exercise of control over the land, and the payment of taxes on the property.
After a careful review of the record and the arguments of the parties, we are led to the conclusion that the trial court improperly weighed the evidence presented on the motion. The law is clear that summary judgment is not a substitute for trial. A motion for summary judgment is only to be granted when it is shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact presented in the pleadings and other evidence before the trial court, and the mov-ant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. L & S Food Services, Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, Inc., 422 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Monroe v. Appelton, 419 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Burkett v. Parker, 410 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The Smiths have not carried the burden which would support summary judgment.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Young v. Johnson, 538 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…knowledge and a court deciding a motion for summary judgment must draw every inference in favor of the nonmoving party, the trial court erred in weighing the evidence on this issue. See Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); St. Clair v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). See also, Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla.1985) (seller of real property has duty to disclose to buyer facts materially affecting value of property which are not readily observable and are not known to buyer). Although the…
-
Richland Grove & Cattle Co., Inc. v. Easterling, 460 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…gment. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that there has not been negated the existence of genuine issues of material fact. We therefore reverse the final summary judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings. St. Clair v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
-
M.J. Kelley Co. v. Spring Lock Scaffolding, Inc., 467 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…f the scaffolding, and the amount claimed by the appellee for the loss of the scaffolding. Therefore, we reverse the final summary judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); St. Clair v. Smith, 445 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). REVERSED AND REMANDED. CAMPBELL and HALL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burkett v. Don L. Parker and wife, 410 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Maxwell Owen Monroe v. Clark Appelton, 419 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- L & S Food Servs., Inc. v. Roberts Cafeteria, Inc., 422 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)