AMANDA C. FORCE, APPELLANT,
v.
LENORA M. ALLISON, ETC., ET AL., 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.
A boundary line dispute between adjacent homeowners was resolved by applying the principle that the actual survey monuments on the ground govern over discrepancies in the written plat. The trial court correctly determined the boundary based on competent evidence of ground monuments and affirmed the dismissal of a slander of title counterclaim.
The trial court correctly applied the governing principle that where there is a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat, the survey as actually run on the ground governs. Force's counterclaim for slander of title failed because she did not make out a prima facie case, and no indispensable parties were omitted from the action.
[1] Where there is a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey, the survey as it was actually run on…
[2] A private survey conflicting with a government survey is inapplicable in a dispute between adjacent landowners concerning the location of original boundary markers.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“where there is a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey, it is the survey as it was actually, run on the ground that governs”
States the fundamental legal principle governing boundary disputes that the trial court correctly applied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAmanda Force and Lenora Allison were adjacent landowners engaged in a boundary line dispute. There was a discrepancy between the location of the origi…
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 Slander Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The resolution of this boundary line dispute between homeowners relies on the long held principle of law that where there is a discrepancy between the location on the ground of the original boundary survey and the written plat of that survey, it is the survey as it was actually, run on the ground that governs. Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805, 806 (1894); Palm Orange Groves v. Yelvington, 41 So. 2d 883 (Fla.1949); Akin v. Godwin, 49 So. 2d 604 (Fla.1951); Brinson v. Shimp, 574 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); see Tyson v. Edwards, 433 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 441 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1983); Calder v. Hillsboro Land Co., 122 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960).
In the instant case, the dispute between adjacent landowners was correctly resolved by the trial court. There was competent evidence presented as to monuments on the ground which proved a single common error existed in the written metes and bounds calls recorded and upon which appellee based her suit for declaratory relief. Cases cited by appellant, defendant below, concerning private surveys conflicting with government surveys are inapplicable. See Rivers v. Lozeau, 539 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 545 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1989); State, Dept. of Transp. v. Borsje, 566 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Appellant did not make out a prima facie case for her counterclaim of slander of title. Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163, 1168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
Also, no indispensable party was omitted from the action by the trial court’s corrective determination. See W.R. Cooper, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 512 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
By the judgment appealed, the subdivision’s landowners return to the harmonious pattern of living which they have enjoyed for the last forty years. See Palm Orange Groves, 41 So. 2d at 885.
Accordingly, the declaratory judgment settling the boundary dispute and the order dismissing the claim for slander of title are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1894)
- Hans Ulrich Bothmann v. Harrington, 458 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Akin v. Godwin, 49 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 1950)
- C.Y. Tyson v. Edwards, 433 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Calder v. Hillsboro Land Co., 122 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- W.R. Cooper, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach & Garcia-Allen Constr. Co., Inc., 512 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Rivers v. Lozeau, 539 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Palm Orange Groves v. Yelvington, 41 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1949)
- State v. Theodorus Borsje and Susan Borsje, 566 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Brinson v. Shimp, 574 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)