FREDERICK BURT AND GLORIA BURT, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDWIN RICHARDS AND BRENDA RICHARDS, CLINTON HINCHMAN AND MURIEL HINCHMAN, AND THE TOWN OF SEWALL'S POINT, FLORIDA, 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 the dismissals with prejudice of the trespass, declaratory relief, and quiet title counts were erroneous as to the remaining three feet of the disputed road.
Appellants sued claiming title to a fifteen-foot road separating their property from appellees' properties. After multiple amended complaints and pret…
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 Right Of Way cases and more on FLexlaw
GARRETT, Judge.
A fifteen-foot paved road separates the appellees’ properties from the appellants’ property.
After a dispute arose, the appellants sued claiming title to the entire fifteen feet. A series of pretrial rulings led to the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint. Along the way, a trespass count was allowed to be amended and then dismissed' with prejudice. A count to quiet title was permitted to stand, then dismissed without prejudice, amended, and then dismissed with prejudice. A count for declaratory relief dismissed with prejudice.
We find such dismissals with prejudice were error. Appellants having conceded the northern twelve feet of the road were conveyed to the Town of Sewall’s Point as a right of way easement and for public utili ties, dissipated much of the legal objection to the trespass count. The dismissal with prejudice should have been limited to the twelve-foot strip. A cause of action for trespass was stated as to the remaining three feet. Likewise, the declaratory relief and quiet title counts should have been allowed to proceed as to the remaining three feet.
The appellants initially joined two of the three adjoining property owners and the town. The third and fourth amended complaints were dismissed with prejudice for failure to join an indispensable party even after the third adjoining property owner and other nearby property owners were made defendants.
The town and the adjoining property owners constituted the indispensable parties. The town will represent the interests of the public at large. Any other individual must show a special and particular injury different from that suffered by the community as a whole before the right to be a party will be recognized. See Freeman v. McIntosh, 338 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Wildlife Fed'n, Inc. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement, 707 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…Inc. v. Suncoast Excavating, Inc., 594 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We find that the appellants’ interests are protected by the Trustees. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court, finding there was no abuse of discretion. See Burt v. Richards, 541 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Charlotte County Development Commission v. Lord, 180 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). AFFIRMED. COBB, J., and ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge, concur. . Rule 1.230 reads: Anyone claiming an interest in pending litigation may at any…
Authorities Cited
- Freeman v. Burton Dyal McINTOSH, Jr., 338 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)