HAROLD CROOMS AND MAUDIE LEE CROOMS, APPELLANTS,
v.
LUCILLE CRAWFORD, AS TRUSTEE, OF THE LUCILLE CRAWFORD REVOCABLE TRUST DATED NOVEMBER 17, 2000, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2003-01-24
No. 2D02-1060
BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.
837 So. 2d 512 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2003) Caution
Cited by 24 cases
Opinion of the Court
COVINGTON, Judge.

COVINGTON, Judge.

Harold and Maudie Crooms, plaintiffs below, challenge the trial court’s order granting Lucille Crawford’s motion for summary judgment. In its order, the trial court concluded that the easement for ingress and egress located on Mrs. Crawford’s property was extinguished by virtue of the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA), Chapter 712, Florida Statutes (2001). On appeal, Mr. and Mrs. Crooms submit that it was error for the trial court to have applied MRTA. We agree. See Holland v. Hattaway, 438 So. 2d 456, 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

BLUE, C.J., and DAVIS, J., Concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

  • State v. Nassau P'rs, Ltd., 878 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
    …nt of the fee, which inures solely to the attorney). We disagree. Initially, we observe that the issue of an owner’s entitlement to fees in an eminent domain proceeding is reviewed by a de novo standard. See Univ. of Fla., Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Attorney’s fees incurred in litigating entitlement to recover costs are authorized by section 73.092(2),1 because a post-judgment costs hearing is included within “other supp…
  • White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Servs. OF Se. Fla., LLC, 226 So. 3d 774 (Fla. 2017)
    …ationships with known, existing, and clearly identifiable health care providers, which is not prohibited by section 542.335(l)(b)3, and may be protected under the statute, nor is it prohibited under University of Florida, Board of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), following the Fourth District’s decisions in White and Infinity Home, On this preliminary issue, we quash Hiles for the following reasons. In Tummala, the Fifth District held that recognition of referral sources as a protected…
  • Edward Supinski, M.D. v. Omni Healthcare, P.A., 853 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
    …mount was not supported by evidence. Dr. Supinski alleged that there was a “change in circumstances” to support the modification; namely a decision by the First District Court of Appeal in the case of University of Florida, Bd. of Trustees v. Sanal, 837 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Omni responded that there were no changed circumstances, and that the bond amount had been stipulated to by the attorney who had previously represented Dr. Supinski at the earlier injunction hearing. Omni’s counsel indicated in…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw