ALICE MARIE BREWER AND BARBARA J. BREWER, APPELLANTS,
v.
JAMES O. FLANKEY AND CAMILLIO O. FLANKEY, 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.
The court reversed a judgment establishing a prescriptive easement because the plaintiffs failed to prove that they or their predecessors in title used the disputed property continuously for the required twenty-year period.
A prescriptive easement claimant must prove by clear and positive proof that the claimant and/or predecessors in title made actual, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the disputed property for the full prescriptive period of twenty years.
[1] A prescriptive easement claimant must prove that the claimant or predecessors in title, not the general public, made actual, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the disp…
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 intelligence“A party claiming a private prescriptive easement may only rely on use of the subject property by himself or his predecessors in title in attempting to show continuous use for the prescribed time period.”
The court explained the requirement that prescriptive easement claims must be based on use by the claimant or predecessors, not general public use.
Plaintiffs owned an adjacent parcel and used encroachments on defendants' property for approximately nine years. Testimony showed that members of the …
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
EVANDER, K.I., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment establishing a prescriptive easement. We conclude that the Plaintiffs failed to prove the required elements of a prescriptive easement and accordingly, reverse.
To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant must prove by clear and positive proof, inter alia, that he and/or his predecessors in title have made actual, continuous, and uninterrupted use of the disputed property for the full prescriptive period of twenty (20) years. Supal v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In the present case, plaintiffs presented testimony that members of the general public have used the disputed property during the 1970’s. However, plaintiffs produced no evidence that their predecessors in title were among those individuals who had utilized the encroachments on defendants’ property. A party claiming a private prescriptive easement may only rely on use of the subject property by himself or his predecessors in title in attempting to show continuous use for the prescribed time period. Supal, 455 So. 2d at 594. Such lack of evidence is fatal to plaintiffs’ case because plaintiffs only owned the adjacent parcel and utilized the encroachments on defendants’ property for approximately nine (9) years.
Accordingly, this cause is hereby reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter a final judgment in favor of the defendants.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stackman v. Pope, 28 So. 3d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ificantly, a party claiming a private prescriptive easement may only rely upon use of the subject property by himself or his predecessors in title in attempting to show actual and continuous use for the prescribed time period. See Brewer v. Flankey, 660 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Supal v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). In the present case, the evidence in the record was clearly insufficient to meet the twenty-year requirement for the majority of the property owners purportedly represented by…
-
Don C. Martin & Nancy B. Martin v. Kavanagh, 773 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…definite route with a reasonably certain line, width, and termini. Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla.1958); Suwannee River Water Management Dist. v. Price, 740 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. denied, 741 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1999); Brewer v. Flankey, 660 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Supal v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Gay Bros. Const. Co. v. Florida Power & Light Co., 427 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). With regard to (1), the evidence established that Martin, and Smith and Cummings utiliz…
Authorities Cited
- Supal v. Miller, 455 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)