MARIE S. REVELS, APPELLANT,
v.
SICO, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 the trial court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession by clear and convincing evidence.
Plaintiff claimed adverse possession of a strip of land bordering her property, asserting substantial enclosure and use. The defendant held record tit…
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 Hostile Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals a final judgment in her action to quiet title based on adverse possession. We affirm the judgment for defendant.
The property in dispute is a strip of land approximately 26 feet by 492 feet on the border between the property of plaintiff and defendant. Defendant has record title to the property, but plaintiff claims adverse possession by substantial enclosure pursuant to the interpretation of section 95.16, Florida Statutes (1983), in Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409 (Fla.1981). Plaintiff claimed that she and her family had mowed the disputed strip over the years, used part of the strip as a driveway, placed a cement driveway pillar on the strip, and maintained the fence which separated the strip from the remainder of defendant’s property.
The trial court found that the disputed parcel was never the subject of a hostile claim nor was it substantially enclosed by plaintiff or usually cultivated or improved so as to allow plaintiff’s use to ripen into title by adverse possession. We do not conclude that the final judgment was erroneous.
A person claiming adverse possession must show by clear and convincing evidence that his possession was open, continuous, notorious, and hostile, and any doubts must be resolved in favor of the owner of the property. Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57, 64-65 (Fla.1958); Cooper v. Davis, 156 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). We cannot say that the trial court erred in its finding that the plaintiff failed to carry her burden of proving that her use of the disputed property was hostile to defendant’s ownership and use rather than being use by implied permission or mere acquiescence of defendant and defendant’s predecessor-in-title. See Cooper. We find no merit in plaintiff’s argument that a boundary by acquiescence was established.
• Affirmed.
RYDER, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seton v. Swann, 650 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1995)…shown in the record. While Swann characterizes this interpretation as dicta, it was subsequently cited as controlling law by at least one district court. See Elizabethan Dev., Inc. v. Magwood, 479 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Revels v. Sico, Inc., 468 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The Setons argue that Seddon controls their case. But as the district court pointed out, the statute analyzed in Seddon was subsequently amended. See ch. 87-194, § 1, at 1255, Laws of Fla. The amended statute, which applies to t…
-
Lucile J. Turner v. Idell C. Wheeler, 498 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…d against Turner on this point. Adverse possession is not favored and all doubts are resolved in favor of the owner. Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla.1958); Crigger v. Florida Power Corp., 436 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Revels v. Sico, Inc., 468 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). It is essential to a finding of adverse possession that the possessor’s use not be permissive. Downing; Crigger. Actual use is presumed permissive and the user has the burden to demonstrate that his use was without permission. Pe…
Authorities Cited
- Lottie Sykes Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1958)
- Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1981)
- J. L. Cooper and wife v. Davis, 156 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)