JAMES JONES AND CATHERINE M. JONES, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM R. MULDROW, LOTTIE M. MULDROW, MARCIA SANDERS AND PHILIP SANDERS, 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.
In this quiet title dispute, the trial court entered judgment for the appellees on both the quiet title claim and a counterclaim for unjust enrichment by establishing a boundary line based on acquiescence. The appellate court affirmed the rejection of the quiet title claim but reversed the boundary by acquiescence ruling due to insufficient factual findings.
The court affirmed the rejection of the quiet title claim but reversed the boundary by acquiescence ruling because the trial court failed to make findings establishing the required elements of boundary by acquiescence: uncertainty or dispute as to the true boundary location, location of a boundary line by the parties, and acquiescence for the prescriptive period.
[1] A claim for boundary by acquiescence requires proof of uncertainty or dispute as to the true boundary, the parties' agreement on a boundary location, and acquiescence in…
[2] A trial court must make specific factual findings to support a ruling establishing a boundary by acquiescence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the trial court failed to make factual findings establishing that the boundary was uncertain or in dispute, or that the 1995 survey established a boundary location acquiesced to for the prescriptive period”
Identifies the specific deficiency in the trial court's ruling that warranted reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Jones appellants brought a quiet title action to challenge a property boundary. The Muldrows, appellees and defendants below, brought a countercla…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellants appeal a final judgment from the trial court entered after a bench trial on appellants’ quiet title action. The final judgment provided that appellants James and Catherine M. Jones failed to establish their quiet title claim by the preponderance of the evidence. The final judgment also provided that the disputed boundary was established by appellees William R. and Lottie M. Muldrow’s 1995 survey based on a theory of boundary by acquiescence.1 We affirm, without further comment, the trial court’s ruling on the quiet title claim. However, we reverse the trial court’s ruling establishing the boundary by acquiescence.
We agree with appellants that the trial court failed to make factual findings establishing that the boundary was uncertain or in dispute, or that the 1995 survey established a boundary location acquiesced to for the prescriptive period. See Sembler Marine Partners, Ltd. v. Skidmore, 842 So. 2d 1003, 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (providing that the elements of boundary by acquiescence are: “(1) uncertainty or dispute as to the location of the true boundary; (2) location of a boundary line by the parties; and (3) acquiescence in the location for the prescriptive period”). Therefore, we reverse in part and remand for the trial court to make findings of fact to support the boundary by acquiescence ruling establishing the boundary by the Mul-drows’ 1995 survey, or otherwise address the counterclaim for unjust enrichment in further proceedings, including evidentiary hearings as may be needed. See Carroll v. Fordham, 781 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (reversing and remanding a final judgment for the trial court to make the appropriate, additional findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the law of boundary by acquiescence).2
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED with directions.
WEBSTER, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur. . Appellees, defendants below, brought a counterclaim alleging unjust enrichment. Because the trial court determined that the boundary was consistent with the appellees' position, their counterclaim was mooted.
. Appellants also argue that the boundary by acquiescence claim was neither pled nor tried by the parties. Because the record does not include a transcript of the trial, we cannot determine whether the issue was tried by consent, or whether appellees moved at trial to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b). Because we reverse the trial court's ruling on this issue on other reasons, we do not reach this argument. Appellants are free to reassert this argument in a subsequent appeal, provided that a transcript of the trial is included in the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lottie M. Muldrow v. Jones, 36 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…L, J. This is the fifth time that the dispute between these same parties over the ownership of the same parcel of land has been before this court, including a prior appeal and three original writ proceedings.1 In the prior appeal, Jones v. Muldrow, 921 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we affirmed the final judgment in favor of the Mul-drows in a quiet title action filed by the Joneses concerning a disputed strip of land allegedly lying between the parties’ property, and remanded the case for additional fact-f…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Sembler Marine P'rs, Ltd. v. Robert J. Skidmore, Inc., 842 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- COX v. State, 781 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)