ROBERT L. KOEPPEL, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM H. CONKLE, JR., AND ANTHONY V. FALCONE, LAWRENCE E. EYNON, M.D., AND DONALD S. BECK, AND SANDS PROPERTIES, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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 trial court's order was an unenforceable perpetual injunction and was not supported by competent and substantial evidence.
Appellees sued Koeppel seeking an injunction and declaration of easement rights over a portion of his property used as an alleyway. The trial court en…
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 Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Robert L. Koeppel appeals an order enjoining him from utilizing a portion of his property. We reverse.
Appellees sued Koeppel for in-junctive relief, declaration of easement rights and for declaratory relief regarding a portion of Koeppel’s property which appellees alleged had been used as a common alleyway for many years. The trial court issued an order finding that “a small portion of the alley did meander onto the easterly side of Koeppel’s property ... but even though Koeppel’s property line extends a little more than a foot beyond the established concrete slab, that [Koeppel] shall not attempt to go beyond the line established by the slab, and that if a fence is to be placed, that the fence should be on top of the slab.” Koeppel was thus enjoined from making use of his property beyond an existing concrete slab even though proceedings to determine the issues were still pending.
The trial court’s order appears to be a perpetual injunction, and is therefore unenforceable. U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard’s Paint Mfg. Co., Inc., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Furthermore, the order is not supported by competent and substantial evidence in the record. Abreu v. Amaro, 534 So. 2d 771 (Fla.3d DCA 1988); Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla.3d DCA 1982). For these reasons, we reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Laufer v. Norma Fashions, Inc., 418 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Carmine Marrone v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Luisa Devers Abreu v. Prospero Amaro and Josefa Amaro, 534 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- U Shop Rite, Inc. v. Richard's Paint MFG. Co., Inc., 369 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)