HOWARD B. HOPSON AND DOROTHY HOPSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
W. H. SANBORN, 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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decree quieting title based on adverse possession, finding sufficient evidence supported the lower court's findings.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to support the lower court's finding of adverse possession.
“We have examined the record in the light of the objections presented and find that the assignments of error are not well founded.”
Establishes the court's conclusion that the appeal lacked merit.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants challenged a final decree quieting title based on adverse possession. They argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the fin…
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 Adverse Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We are here concerned with an appeal from a 'final' decree quieting title based upon adverse possession. Appellants and appellee are agreed that the cause is governed by the provisions of Section 95.-19, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. All of the assignments of error question the sufficiency of the evidence “as a whole to support the finding” that the plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession. The principal challenges of the appellants were (1) the evidence did not support the finding of adverse possession because of a failure of the plaintiff to demonstrate an intention to hold adversely, and (2) there was not' adequate' evidence upon which to find that the land had been “usually cultivated or improved” as required by the statute above mentioned. Without discussing the evidence in detail it is sufficient to point out that we have examined the record in the light of the objections presented and find that the assignments of error are not well founded.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, TL, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ormsby v. Ginolfi, 107 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)…er the release was executed under a bona fide mistake of fact. Our adherence thereto does not do violence to the companion rule that unknown or unexpected consequences of known injuries will not invalidate a release. Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So. 2d 200; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So. 2d 898; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589, 3 So. 2d 335. The proofs before the trial court on the motion for summary judgment must be considered in the light most favorable to the non-…
-
VAN de Water v. Echols, 382 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…er the release was executed under a bona fide mistake of fact. Our adherence thereto does not do violence to the companion rule that unknown or unexpected consequences of known injuries will not invalidate a release. Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So. 2d 200; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So. 2d 898; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589, 3 So. 2d 335. De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, 95 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1957), involved a release from “any and all known and unknown personal inju…
-
Capatenadis v. Sutton, 101 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1958)