GARY W. EASTERLING AND KAROLINE M. EASTERLING, APPELLANTS,
v.
CHARLES M. KEELS AND MARY P. KEELS, 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 summary judgment that denied the Easterlings' right to use a five-foot utility easement reserved on a subdivision plat, finding no factual basis in the record for limiting the easement's intended use.
A trial court's summary judgment denying use of a reserved utility easement must be supported by factual findings regarding the easement's intended use, not legal conclusions alone.
[1] A trial court's presumption of correctness on summary judgment is lost when the record contains no factual basis supporting the court's determination of an easement's int…
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 intelligenceThe Easterlings sought to use a five-foot easement reserved on a subdivision plat for utilities to serve their boat slips. The trial court granted sum…
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 Easement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Easterlings appeal a final summary judgment in which the trial court ruled as a matter of law that a five-foot easement was not available for the Easterlings’ use. The easement in question was reserved on the subdivision plat and dedicated as follows:
[F]or the City, the County and the general public, easements of 5' along the rear and sides of all lot lines for underground and overhead utilities, surface drainage and for any purpose consistent with good practice for the development of this property.
In granting final summary judgment against the Easterlings, the trial judge ruled that this easement was “customary for providing utilities to the abutting lots and that extending the use of the easement to provide water or electric service across or along the side of Lot 7 to the boat slips would expand the intended use.”
A trial court’s order granting summary judgment is entitled to the presumption of correctness only if the record supports the ruling. See Watson v. Hahn, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). The record here contains no factual basis for the court’s ruling regarding the intended use of the easement. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment that ruled the easement was not available for utility lines to the Easter-lings’ boat slip and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pyjek v. Valleycrest Landscape Dev., Inc., 116 So. 3d 475 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…-02 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (citing Snyder). Competelli v. City of Belleair Bluffs, 2013 WL 1352480, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D773, D773 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr.5, 2013). Our review, of course, is limited to the record before the trial court. See Easterling v. Keels, 681 So. 2d 744, 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Welch v. Celotex Corp., 951 F. 2d 1235, 1237 n. 3 (11th Cir.1992). Oür record contains deposition transcripts, a few exhibits, and a landscape expert’s affidavit submitted by Mr. Pyjek. We have no photographs of the site. T…
-
Progressive Consumers Ins. Co. v. Florestal (9th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2008)…ellant certainly makes a strong case that summary judgment was improperly issued in Appellee’s favor. While it is certainly true that a trial court’s decision comes to the appellate court clothed in a presumption of correctness, Easterling v. Keels, 681 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1996), a competing presumption is present when a motion for summary judgment is involved. As the Florida Supreme Court has noted, “[m]indful as we are of the presumption of correctness which attaches to an order of the trial court, nevertheles…
Authorities Cited
- Gulf Ins. Co. v. Stofman, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Watson v. Truman Hahn, 664 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)