DICK PARRINO, ET AL, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOHN L. AYERS, 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 Parrinos sued Ayers for ejectment and trespass based on a fence dispute, claiming the 1978 letter from Ayers' attorney referring to the fence's location justified their 1982 action. The trial court granted summary judgment for Ayers and awarded attorney's fees under Florida Statute § 57.105, which the appellate court affirmed, holding that the Parrinos lacked sufficient evidence of trespass or wrongful dispossession by Ayers himself or his agents.
The court held that the Parrinos lacked a valid cause of action against Ayers because they presented no evidence that Ayers or his agents had trespassed on or wrongfully dispossessed them of their land. The Parrinos could not assume these essential facts merely from Ayers' four-year-old assertion of ownership of adjoining property, distinguishing this case from situations involving good faith reliance on mistaken witness testimony or police reports.
[1] A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, if there was a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by their action.
[2] A landowner is not vicariously liable for a trespass on, or wrongful dispossession of, adjoining lands unless those acts were committed by the landowner or their agents.
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“The Parrinos had no cause of action against Ayers unless Ayers or his agents trespassed on, or had actually wrongfully dispossessed the Parrinos of some of their land.”
Establishes the legal requirement that the Parrinos needed to prove Ayers' personal involvement or agency in the alleged trespass
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1978, Ayers' attorney wrote complaining that the Parrinos' fence encroached on Ayers' property. In May 1982, the fence was knocked down and…
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 Justiciable Issue Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
This case involves an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
In January, 1978, an attorney for appel-lee Ayers wrote a letter to one of the appellants, Dick Parrino, complaining that the Parrinos’ fence encroached “on his [Ayers’] property.” In May, 1982, the Parri-nos’ fence was knocked down and a new one put up on property allegedly belonging to the Parrinos. In that same month, the Parrinos’ attorney wrote a letter to Ayers stating that he had been retained to sue for ejectment and damages if the fence “you or your agents” erected on the Parrinos’ land was not removed within ten days. Receiving no reply, the Parrinos filed, on June 8, 1982, an action for ejectment and trespass against Ayers. The Parrinos took Ayers’ deposition and learned that in December, 1976, Ayers had transferred to his nephews title to the property adjoining the Parrinos'.
The trial court granted Ayers’ motion for summary judgment and upon his motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes, awarded Ayers attorney’s fees of $2,000.
On appeal, the Parrinos claim section 57.-105, Florida Statutes, authorizes attorney’s fees only if there was a complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by their action and that the 1978 letter from Ayers’ attorney referring to the Parrinos’ fence as being “on his [Ayers’] property” justified the Parrinos’ 1982 action for ejectment and trespass against Ayers. We cannot agree.
The Parrinos had no cause of action against Ayers unless Ayers or his agents trespassed on, or had actually wrongfully dispossessed the Parrinos of some of their land. The Parrinos had no witness that Ayers had trespassed on their land or that Ayers was in actual possession of the Par-rinos’ lands and merely assumed that fact because over four years earlier Ayers had asserted ownership of the adjoining land. This is a different case than where one relies in good faith on a mistaken witness as in Stevenson v. Rutherford, 440 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), or where plaintiff relies on a fact mistakenly set forth in a police report and makes a reasonable, albeit insufficient, effort to ascertain the true ownership of a motor vehicle, as in McHan v. Huggins, 459 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The owner of a motor vehicle may be vicariously liable for damages caused by the motor vehicle based solely on his ownership of it but a landowner is not vicariously liable for a trespass on, or a wrongful dispossession of, adjoining lands unless those acts were committed by such landowner or his agents. Evidence is essential to establish the facts alleged as the basis for the two causes of action in this case. From the record of this case it appears that the Parrinos relied on no evidence in filing this action against Ayers claiming that Ayers had trespassed on, and dispossessed the Parrinos of their property and the Parrinos were not justified in assuming those essential facts merely from Ayers’ assertion, four years previously, of the ownership of adjoining property-
AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schwartz v. W-K P'rs, 530 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…453 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Sepner v. Village of Royal Palm Beach, 444 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). See also Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, Inc. v. Modem Graphic Arts, Inc., 464 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), Ayers was awarded attorney’s fees under section 57.105 after summary judgment was entered in his favor. The Parrinos had filed suit in 1982 against Ayers for ejectment and trespass, alleging [*458] that Ayers’ fence encroached o…
-
L.L. v. Zipperer, 484 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ermine if the health unit was, in fact, an agency of the County before filing suit, despite the fact that he had been notified in writing that Zipperer was not a county employee. Thus, the facts in this case are similar to those in Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) and in Galbraith v. Inglese, 402 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), where the award of fees under this statute was approved, and are distinguishable from McHan v. Huggins, 459 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), where the defendant was…
-
Baker v. Lourdes M. Mathew, M.D., 518 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…summary judgment should be affirmed. . See the comment to Rule 4-3.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, effective January 1, 1987 {The Florida Bar re: Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1986)). . See e.g. Parrino v. Ayers, 469 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1985).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stevenson v. Rutherford, 440 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- McHAN v. Huggins, 459 So. 2d 1172 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)