SUWANNEE RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICK W. PRICE, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1995-03-06
No. 94-1188
MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.
651 So. 2d 749 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 22 cases

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.

Synopsis

The Suwannee River Water Management District appealed a summary judgment awarding a prescriptive easement to Patrick Price over the District's land. The court reversed, holding that Price failed to establish material elements of a prescriptive easement claim as a matter of law.

Holding

The court held that the appellee failed to conclusively establish that he and his predecessors had made actual, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the claimed easement for the prescriptive period, and failed to conclusively establish that any such use was adverse to the landowners. Summary judgment was therefore improper.

Headnotes

[1] To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant must prove actual, continuous, and uninterrupted use of another's land for the prescriptive period, along a definite rout…

[2] Use or possession of another's land is presumed to be subordinate to the owner's title and with the owner's permission; the burden is on the claimant to prove adverse use…

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
Key Quotes

“To establish entitlement to a prescriptive easement, one must prove (1) that he or she and any predecessors in title have made actual, continuous and uninterrupted use of the lands of another for the prescriptive period (twenty years); (2) that (when the claim is to a right-of-way) the use has entailed a definite route whth a reasonably certain line, width and termini; (3) that the use has been either with the actual knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious and visible that knowledge of the use must be imputed to the owner; and (4) that the use has been adverse to the owner”

Sets forth the four-element test required to establish a prescriptive easement under Florida law

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Facts & Procedural History

Price sought to establish a prescriptive easement over land owned by the Suwannee River Water Management District. The District challenged a summary j…

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.

Topics
Prescriptive Easement Burden Of Proof In Summary Judgment Burden Of Proof Summary Judgment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prescriptive Easement cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
WEBSTER, Judge.

WEBSTER, Judge.

Appellant seeks review of a summary final judgment establishing a prescriptive easement over lands owned by appellant in favor of appellee and “his guests and invitees.” Because we conclude that appellee failed to demonstrate conclusively that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact, we reverse.

To establish entitlement to a prescriptive easement, one must prove (1) that he or she and any predecessors in title have made actual, continuous and uninterrupted use of the lands of another for the prescriptive period (twenty years); (2) that (when the claim is to a right-of-way) the use has entailed a definite route whth a reasonably certain line, width and termini; (3) that the use has been either with the actual knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious and visible that knowledge of the use must be imputed to the owner; and (4) that the use has been adverse to the owner — that is, without permission (express or implied) from the owner, under some claim of right, inconsistent wdth the rights of the owner and such that, for the entire period, the owner could have sued to prevent further use. E.g., Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla.1958); Cook v. Proctor & Gamble Cellulose Co., 599 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Supal v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Crigger v. Florida Power Corp., 436 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Because the law does not favor the acquisition of prescriptive rights, use or possession of another’s land is presumed to be subordinate to the owner’s title, and with the owner’s permission; and the burden is on the claimant to prove that such use or possession is adverse to the owner. E.g., Downing; Phelps v. Griffith, 629 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Telesco v. Nooner and Neal Co., 600 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Crigger. To establish his entitlement to a summary judgment, appellee was obliged to demonstrate conclusively that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to any of the foregoing elements of his cause of action for a prescriptive easement, even after all reasonable inferences had been drawn in favor of appellant; and that, based upon the undisputed facts, he was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla.1985); Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966); American Crime Prevention Corp. v. Computerized Monitoring Service, Inc., 539 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Until appellee had met that initial burden, appellant was not obliged to present anything to contradict appellee’s assertions. E.g., Clark v. Gochenaur, 623 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Spradley v. Stick, 622 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Based upon our review of the record, we hold that appellee failed conclusively to establish that he and any predecessors in title had made actual, continuous and uninterrupted use of the claimed easement for the prescriptive period. In addition, appellee failed conclusively to establish that any such use was adverse to the owners of the land during that period — that is, without their permission, under some claim of right, inconsistent with their rights and such that, for the entire period, they could have sued to prevent further use. Accordingly, the summary final judgment is reversed; and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Cassady v. Moore, 737 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
    …sively that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that, on the undisputed facts, he was • entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Linton v. Gulf County, 713 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Suwannee River Water Management District v. Price, 651 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). At that point, the burden shifted to Cassa-dy, as the non-movant, to “come forward with counter-evidence sufficient to reveal a genuine issue.” Harvey Building, Inc. v. Haley, 175 So. 2d 780, 783 (Fla.1965). Cas-sady has not met…
  • Bentz v. Carroll McDANIEL and Melvene J. McDaniel, 872 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …ence, a substantial enclosure, or cultivation. However, plaintiff must prove this cause of action, not by the greater weight of evidence but by clear and positive proof or by clear and convincing evidence); Suwannee River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Price, 651 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 660 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1995) (to establish entitlement to a prescriptive easement the burden is on the claimant to prove that such use or possession is adverse to the owner). At the non-jury trial, the fact of the record…
  • DAN v. BSJ Realty, LLC, 953 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
    …the rights of the owner of the land to its use and enjoyment, and (c) the use has been such that, during the whole prescribed period, the owner had a cause of action against the user for the use being made. Suwannee River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Price, 651 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(citing Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla.1958)); Phelps v. Griffith, 629 So. 2d 304, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Crigger v. Fla. Power Corp., 436 So. 2d 937, 944-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Guerard v. Roper, 385 So. 2d 718, 720 (F…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw