LAURIE H. HOSFORD AND KAREN B. HOSFORD, APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES,
v.
DANIEL G. WENTZ AND DORIS L. WENTZ, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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 and remanded a judgment granting a 15-foot easement to the Wentzes because the trial court failed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law, preventing appellate review of whether the easement should be 10 or 15 feet wide.
A trial court must enter findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues framed by the parties to permit meaningful appellate review of easement width disputes.
[1] A trial court's judgment on a disputed easement width must be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing all issues framed by the parties to permit…
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 Hosfords and Wentzes disputed the width of an easement over the Hosfords' property, with the Hosfords claiming 10 feet was sufficient and the Went…
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 Way Of Necessity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By appeal and cross-appeal, the parties seek review of a final judgment entered following a non-jury trial, granting to the Wentzes a 15-foot wide easement over the property of the Hosfords. The Hosfords assert that the Wentzes are entitled to only a 10-foot wide easement. The judgment is unaccompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law, and we are unable to discern from the record the legal basis upon which the trial court rested its decision. The absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law precludes us from deciding the issues framed by the parties on appeal. Accordingly, we have no alternative but to reverse, and remand with directions that the trial court make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues framed by the parties, including the Wentzes’ claim that they are entitled to a 15-foot wide statutory way of necessity. See generally Pamela Equities, Inc. v. Nyren Enters., Inc., 850 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing and remanding because the appellate court was unable to determine from the record the basis for the trial court’s decision, including whether the trial court had even considered a particular issue); Miller v. Miller, 589 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing and remanding because the lack of specific findings on the issues raised precluded meaningful appellate review).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, LEWIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Miller, 589 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Pamela Equities, Inc. v. Nyren Enters., Inc., 850 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)