ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
CITY OF LAUDERDALE LAKES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
Enterprise Leasing Company sought to quiet title to a roadway on its property, claiming it was private rather than public. The trial court ruled in Enterprise's favor, but the appellate court reversed in part, finding insufficient evidence regarding whether a declaration of covenants included the entire roadway, and remanded for further proceedings.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that the roadway was private property and not subject to the City's claims of estoppel and laches, but reversed the finding that Exhibit B included the entire L-shaped roadway because no competent evidence supported that finding, and remanded for further proceedings to develop additional evidence on this issue.
[1] A court may remand a case for further proceedings to take additional evidence when an issue was fairly raised in the pleadings and its determination is necessary to compl…
[2] A trial court's finding that a specific exhibit includes a roadway is not supported when there is no competent evidence presented to support such a finding.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We reverse that part of the judgment which finds that exhibit B of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and Unity of Title Agreement includes the entire L-shaped roadway because there was no competent evidence presented to support such a finding.”
Establishes the basis for reversal—lack of competent evidence supporting a key factual finding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEnterprise Leasing Company owned property within the City of Lauderdale Lakes that included an L-shaped roadway. The City filed a counterclaim seeking…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
This is an action to quiet title and for declaratory relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Enterprise Leasing Company (appel-lantycross-appellee) filed suit to quiet title in a roadway situated on its property within the City of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida (appel-lee/cross-appellant). The City filed a counterclaim for declaratory relief asking the court to declare the roadway a dedicated thoroughfare for public travel, or, in the alternative, that the public enjoyed an easement of passage over the roadway. Following a bench trial, final judgment was entered quieting title in favor of appellant and declaring the L-shaped roadway private property and not a public road.
We reverse that part of the judgment which finds that exhibit B of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and Unity of Title Agreement includes the entire L-shaped roadway because there was no competent evidence presented to support such a finding. In fact, there was no competent evidence which would support a finding either way.1 Because the issue was fairly raised in the pleadings and its determination necessary to completely resolve the dispute between the parties in this action, we remand to the trial court for further proceedings so that additional evidence may be taken. See Griffin v. Bolen, 149 Fla. 377, 5 So. 2d 690 (1942) (in order to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits it is appropriate for a trial court to resolve all issues properly raised in the litigation).
We have carefully considered the other issues raised by the parties, including the City’s claims of estoppel and laches, and find no error in the trial court’s determinations. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur. . Exhibit B contained an incomplete legal description and was inconclusive on its face to resolve this issue. We note that both parties recognized the paucity of evidence presented at trial and submitted post-trial affidavits from witnesses addressing the issue of whether exhibit B contemplated the entire L-shaped roadway. Those witnesses may, if available, and at the discretion of the trial court and the litigants, give sworn testimony at any subsequent proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marlyn Tracey v. Wells Fargo Bank, 264 So. 3d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…sing the initial eligibility determination, and thereby reverse the overpayment determination, but at the same time not overturn the underlying decision because that decision was not timely appealed"); Enter. Leasing Co. v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 637 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (reversing final judgment quieting title to a roadway in favor of a private owner but remanding for a new trial where there was no competent evidence on whether the roadway was included within a recorded declaration; "[b]ecause t…
Authorities Cited
- Griffin v. Bolen, 149 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1942)