JOHN MISKOFF, APPELLANT,
v.
CROSS FOX CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION NOT FOR PROFIT; AND CECIL J. ROGERS, 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 court held that an easement of necessity cannot be granted if the property already has a way of ingress and egress.
Appellee sought an easement of necessity across appellant's property. Appellee's property already had direct access to two streets and an alley.…
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 Easement By Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
HURLEY, Judge.
This is an appeal questioning the propriety of the trial court’s grant of an easement of necessity across appellant’s property. We reverse.
Preliminarily, we find incorrect appellee’s contention that since appellant’s initial appeal was dismissed as untimely, this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal. Appellant’s former appeal involved issues which were interdependent with other issues pending resolution by the trial court and was therefore interlocutory. S.L.T. Warehouse Company v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1974). Dismissal of an interlocutory appeal for untimeliness will not bar subsequent review of the issue on full appeal. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972).
Appellee occupies an L-shaped parcel which has, without the easement, direct access to and from two streets and an alley. An easement of necessity will not be found in favor of property that has a way of ingress and egress apart from the easement. Roy v. Euro-Holland Vast-goed, B.V., 404 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
REVERSED.
GLICKSTEIN, J., and GOLDMAN, MURRAY, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Costa Del Mar, Inc. v. Haney (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…uld not adjudicate the issues raised in the appeal.” 2 Fla. Prac., Appellate Practice § 15:1. But this exception means only that the nonfinal issue may be raised in a later appeal of a final order. See, e.g., Miskoff v. Cross Fox Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 460 So. 2d 987, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that dismissal of an interlocutory appeal “will not bar subsequent review of the issue on full appeal”); Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972) (same). See also Hammerl, 779 So. 2d at…
Authorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- ROY v. Euro-Holland Vastgoed, 404 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)