NORDVIND TWO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
TREASURE SHORES BEACH CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
A property seller who conveyed land to a county retains standing to challenge an easement burdening the property where the sale contract withholds funds in escrow and grants the seller co-counsel rights in related litigation.
A seller of real property has standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging an easement on the conveyed property when the sale contract places funds in escrow to offset losses from easement disputes and grants the seller participation rights in related litigation.
[1] A property seller retains standing to challenge an easement on conveyed property where the sale contract places purchase price funds in escrow for easement-related losses…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNordvind conveyed real property to Pinellas County under a contract that withheld $200,000 in escrow to offset losses or litigation costs from an ease…
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 Real Property cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
This is an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing appellant’s declaratory judgment suit for lack of standing. Appellant, who had conveyed certain real property to Pinellas County, brought this suit, together with Pinellas County, to have determined invalid a recorded easement held by appellee on the property. Appellant in one count sought a declaratory judgment, and the county in the other count sought to quiet title. Notwithstanding the well presented argument on behalf of appellee, we reverse.
Under the terms of the contract of sale between appellant as seller and the county as buyer, $200,000 of the purchase price was withheld from appellant and placed in escrow by the county “to offset any losses the County may suffer or for any litigation costs the County may incur as a result of dispute concerning the ... easement[]_” The contract further provides that appellant “shall have the right to co-counsel and participation in any litigation resulting from the [county’s] use and occupancy of the property in relation to the said ... easement[]....,” which appears to mean litigation like that in this case to obtain a judicial determination concerning the validity of the easement. Under these circumstances we conclude that appellant has a sufficient stake and interest in the controversy to bring this suit. See Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines Ltd., 462 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). See also Jamlynn Investments Corp. v. San Marco Residences of Marco Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 544 So. 2d 1080, 1082 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith,
RYDER, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kumar Corp. v. Nopal Lines, Ltd., 462 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Jamlynn Invs. Corp. v. San Marco Residences of Marco Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 544 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)