MARCIA K. FORTUNE; THEODORE R. FORTUNE; MARY MARSH, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE MARY MARSH TRUST; MILAN MARSH, AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE MARY MARSH TRUST; MARLENE MORRISON; RUSSELL MORRISON; LAWRENCE MURRAY; SUSAN MURRAY; JAMES PARIS; JOYCE PARIS; BERYL SANDHAM; AND RAYMOND SANDHAM, APPELLANTS,
v.
FLOYD HUTCHINSON; LINDA HUTCHINSON; ATUL KSHATRI; SUSAN KSHATRI; MAGBOOL QURASHI; REINHILD QURASHI; ANTOINETTE PERILO; ALBERT DOBSON; PHYLLIS DOBSON; NORMAN TANDBERG; BJORG TANDBERG; NORBERT LAGUE; MONIQUE LAGUE; HAROLD CUNNINGHAM; BRIDGEWATER TOWNHOMES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC; BRIDGEWATER TOWNHOUSES HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND K & G ESTATES, INC., 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.
Waterfront and non-waterfront townhome owners in a Florida development disputed ownership of and access to a boat slip constructed by non-waterfront owners (the Hutchinsons). The trial court granted the Hutchinsons an ownership interest in the dock/boat slip and access rights through common elements; the appellate court affirmed but remanded for clarification of the nature of the ownership interest granted.
The trial court properly found that the Hutchinsons have an ownership interest in their constructed dock/boat slip and a right of access through the common sidewalks and walkways. However, the appellate court remanded for clarification of what type of ownership interest was granted—whether an easement by necessity, a license, or another right.
[1] A trial court's declaratory judgment will be affirmed if supported by substantial, competent evidence.
[2] A court may grant access to common elements, such as walkways and docks, to a party with an ownership interest, even if those elements are gated.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 Hutchinsons have an ownership interest in their constructed dock/boat slip. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Hutchinsons have a right to access their dock/boat slip through the common sidewalks and walkways of the townhome community, which are currently gated and locked.”
The trial court's declaratory judgment granting the Hutchinsons ownership and access rights, which the appellate court affirmed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hutchinsons, non-waterfront townhome owners in the Tierra Verde development, constructed a boat slip/dock in front of waterfront properties and ma…
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 License cases and more on FLexlaw
The case underlying this appeal is the result of the acrimony between feuding neighbors in the Tierra Verde development originally known as Bridgewater Townhomes, neighbors who, not so long ago, were able to reside together peacefully. Essentially, the battle lines are drawn between the townhome owners on the waterfront — the appellants — and the nonwaterfront townhome owners — the ap-pellees — who live behind them. The waterfront owners filed a multicount complaint in which they sought in Count IV declaratory relief specifically against non-waterfront homeowners Floyd and Linda Hutchinson. The Hutchinsons counterclaimed for similar relief: a declaration of the Hutchinsons’ claim of right or title to a boat slip or dock that the Hutchinsons built in front of the waterfront properties and that they maintained for six years without complaint from any waterfront owner. The six years of peaceful coexistence ended when an altercation occurred between one waterfront family and the Hutchinsons. This led to the installation of locked gates that deprived the Hutchin-sons of access over the waterfront properties necessary to reach their boat slip or dock. The sole issue we review is the declaratory judgment on ownership of and access to the Hutchinsons’ boat slip.
This is an equitable action in which the parties presented the trial court with a chaotic and complex legal and factual history of this community. Commendably, the trial court sought to make order out of this chaos by awarding the Hutchinsons relief and granting them access to their boat slip.1 The final declaratory judgment provides:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Hutchinsons have an ownership interest in their constructed dock/boat slip. It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Hutchinsons have a right to access their dock/boat slip through the common sidewalks and walkways of the town-home community, which are currently gated and locked. The Court mandates that the Hutchinsons be allowed access to the common elements including the dock area. This Court orders that within ten (10) days of the signing of this Order the [waterfront owners] provide Defendants, Hutchinsons, with a key to unlock the gate(s) to the dock area.
Because there was substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings, we affirm the final declaratory judgment but remand to the trial court for clarification of the type of “ownership interest” it granted to the Hutchinsons, be it an easement by necessity, a license, or other right.
Affirmed but remanded for clarification.
CASANUEVA, C.J., and DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tara Woods SPE, LLC v. Louella Cashin, 116 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…the terms of her seller’s prospectus and lease.” II. Discussion In a declaratory judgment action, this court defers to the circuit court’s findings of fact, provided they are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Fortune v. Hutchinson, 20 So. 3d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). However, the circuit court’s conclusions of law, when based on its interpretation of statutes and written agreements and contracts, are reviewed de novo. See J.S.U.B., Inc. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 906 So. 2d 303, 306 (Fla. 2d…
-
Bloomingdale Trails Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Westbrook, 232 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…emand for the circuit court to enter an amended final judgment of foreclosure that clarifies that the Bloomingdale Trails Homeowners’ Association’s lien on the subject property is not affected by the entry of the judgment. Cf. Fortune v. Hutchinson, 20 So. 3d 476, 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (affirming and remanding for clarification where circuit court’s declaratory judgment failed to indicate a litigant’s type of “ownership interest” in certain property). Affirmed; remanded with instructions. KELLY, LUCAS,…