ALICE MCCLELLAND, APPELLANT,
v.
THE TOWN OF EUSTIS, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision to dissolve a temporary injunction, holding that while a town may have the authority to discontinue a street, it must provide compensation for improvements made by an abutting owner.
Yes, a town may have the statutory authority to discontinue a street. However, if it chooses to reopen or use the property, it must provide proper compensation for any improvements made by the abutting owner.
“As the town had statutory authority at least to discontinue the street, and as it undertook to do so by an ordinance passed over the mayor’s veto, the enclosure and improvement of the space by the abutting owner was apparently authorized and acquiesced in even though the ordinance was not passed upon the petition of twelve free holders as required by another ordinance of the town, the statutory authority to discontinue the street being ample.”
Establishes the town's statutory authority to discontinue the street and the abutting owner's improvements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA town passed an ordinance to abandon a dedicated street that had not been opened or used. The abutting owner, who held title to the middle of the str…
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 Inverse Condemnation cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, P. J.
A suit was brought to enjoin the town from using as a street property in a subdivision that had been dedicated as a street but had been by ordinance abandoned as one of the streets of the town before it had been opened or used, and the space had for perhaps twenty years been enclosed and improved by the abutting owner who had title to the middle of the space on each side subject to the dedication. As the town had statutory authority at least to discontinue the street, and as it undertook to do so by an ordinance passed over the mayor’s veto, the enclosure and improvement of the space by the abutting owner was apparently authorized and acquiesced in even though the ordinance was not passed upon the petition of twelve free holders as required by another ordinance of the town, the statutory authority to discontinue the street being ample.
Assuming but not deciding that the town had a right to open and use the street notwithstanding its discontinuance, the right should be exercised only upon making proper compensation for at least the improvements, including bearing fruit treets permitted to be placed thereon and continued for many years after the passage of the ordinance discontinuing the street.
The decree dissolving the temporary injunction is reversed and the cause is remanded with leave for appropriate judicial proceedings to recover proper compensation.
West and Terrell, J. J., concur. Taylor, C. J., and Ellis and Browne, J. J., concur in the opinion.