WILLIAM A. DUBOIS, SR., WILLIAM DUBOIS, JR., AND ROBERT M. DUBOIS, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARTIN J. AMESTOY, AND NANCY E. AMESTOY, ET AL., APPELLEES, AND LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT, 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.
In this ejectment action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that because the undisputed facts were susceptible to varying reasonable inferences regarding the doctrine's elements, summary judgment was inappropriate and the case must be remanded for trial.
The court held that summary judgment based on boundary by acquiescence was improperly granted because the record evidence did not establish all three required elements as a matter of law. The undisputed facts permitted different reasonable inferences on the issues of mutual uncertainty, location of a boundary by the parties, and acquiescence.
[1] To prove boundary by acquiescence, three elements must be established: uncertainty or dispute as to the true boundary, location of a boundary line by the parties, and acq…
[2] The uncertainty required for boundary by acquiescence must be mutual as to both adjoining property owners.
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“In order to prove boundary by acquiescence, three elements must be established: (1) uncertainty or dispute as to the location of the true boundary; (2) location of a boundary line by the parties; and (3) acquiescence in such location for the prescriptive period.”
States the legal test for establishing boundary by acquiescence that courts must apply.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellees relied on a government survey identifying a dike and ditch as the proper boundary between their property and the appellants' property. T…
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 Prescriptive Period cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
In this action for ejectment, the trial court entered summary final judgment in favor of appellees based on the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. Because the facts, although largely undisputed, were susceptible to varying inferences, some of which could defeat appellees’ claim, we reverse.
The doctrine of boundary by acquiescence is uniquely applicable to disputes involving adjoining property owners. In order to prove boundary by acquiescence, three elements must be established: (1) uncertainty or dispute as to the location of the true boundary; (2) location of a boundary line by the parties; and (3) acquiescence in such location for the prescriptive period. Shaw v. Williams, 50 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1950); Holley v. May, 75 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1954); McDonald v. Givens, 509 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). It is well settled in the ease law that the uncertainty must be mutual as to both property owners. Evans v. Forte, 510 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 518 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1987).
To be entitled to summary judgment based upon the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence, the moving party must establish the existence of all three elements based on the undisputed material facts. Horizon South Master Home Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. West, 591 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Moreover, despite any presumption of correctness which attaches to the lower court’s order, the reviewing court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is granted. Williams v. Bevis, 509 So. 2d 1304, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
In the instant case, the record fails to reveal that any of the requisite elements of boundary by acquiescence have been established as a matter of law. In sum, the evidence upon which the summary judgment was based merely showed (1) that based upon a government survey, appellees decided that a dike and ditch represented the proper boundary between their property and appellants’ property; (2) that appellants’ predecessors in title hired a surveyor who placed boundary stakes on the property appellees considered to be their property; (3) that appellees pulled up the stakes and told appellants’ predecessors in title that the dike represented the true boundary line; and (4) that appellants’ predecessors in title, for some reason not disclosed in the record, did nothing to challenge appellees’ assertion of the boundary line for many years.
Because the record evidence permits different reasonable inferences on the issues of mutual uncertainty, location of a boundary by the parties, and acquiescence, we find that summary judgment was improperly granted.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)….P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). In determining the correctness of summary judgment, an appellate court must accept the facts as pleaded and view all possible inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See DuBois v. Amestoy, 652 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). “A movant for summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. But once he tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forwa…
-
Michael and Susan Ribak v. Centex Real Est. Corp., 702 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…, 1167-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary judgment, the appellate court “must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is granted.” DuBois v. Amestoy, 652 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(citing Williams v. Bevis, 509 So. 2d 1304, 1306 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)). In this ease, the twenty-two residential home buyers brought suit against the developer/seller for fraud, conspiracy, negligent supervision, breach of du…
-
Sembler Marine P'rs, Ltd. v. Robert J. Skidmore, Inc., 842 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…uncertainty or dispute as to the location of the true boundary; (2) location of a boundary line by the parties; and (3) acquiescence in the location for the prescriptive period. See Shaw v. Williams, 50 So. 2d 125, 126 (Fla.1950); DuBois v. Amestoy, 652 So. 2d 919, 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Moreover, “uncertainty means actual lack of knowledge on the part of both owners as to the true boundary” and must be mutual as to both property owners. Shaw, 50 So. 2d at 127-28. Shaw explains that the boundary line so agr…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shaw v. Williams, 50 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1950)
- Holley v. MAY, 75 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1954)
- Williams v. Russell R. Bevis & the Fla. Nat'l Bank, 509 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Nettie McDONALD v. Ossie Howard Givens and Doris Linnell Givens, 509 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Horizon S. Master Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Walter B. West and wife, 591 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Evans v. Forte, 510 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)