CELIA MORRIS, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
OMAR GARCIA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Undivided Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
We agree with the trial court that, rather than their possessing a non-exclusive easement that would survive partition, the ten owners of the Dolphin Estates residential lots each own an undivided l/49th interest in the property known as the Beach Area and the Access Canal (the “Property”). Similarly, rather than his holding an easement1 in the Property, Omar Garcia, as tenant in common with the Dolphin Estates homeowners, owns the remaining 39/49th undivided interest. While this odd arrangement might not have reflected the grantors’ intent, nevertheless it is the arrangement reflected by the respective deeds granting the parties their interests in the Property.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. Roorda (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…ly, this inverse-Solomonic1 approach was precluded by the original grantors' failure to legally effect their intent in light of black letter law providing that one cannot grant oneself an easement in one's own property. See, e.g., Morris v. Garcia, 224 So. 3d 268, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing One Harbor Fin. Ltd. v. Hynes Props., LLC, 884 So. 2d 1039, 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)); Hensel v. Aurilio, 417 So. 2d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ("Appellee could not, while he was the owner of both the dominant and…
Authorities Cited
- Belleme v. State, 884 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- ONE Harbor Fin. Ltd. Co. v. Hynes Props., LLC, 884 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)