ANTONIO LUBRANO AND AMPARA LUBRANO, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
R. J. MACAULEY ET AL., 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.
This case involves a dispute over a thirty-foot strip of land, where the plaintiffs claimed record title and the defendants claimed adverse possession. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support both adverse possession and the establishment of a boundary by acquiescence.
Yes, the evidence supported the trial court's findings. The defendants proved adverse possession for the statutory period, and the evidence also established a boundary by acquiescence.
“If the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the verdict and the judgment of the trial court, the same will not be disturbed on appeal.”
Establishes the standard of review for the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs, appellants below, brought an ejectment action claiming record title to a thirty-foot strip of land. The defendants, appellees, claimed…
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 Record Title cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants were plaintiffs below and brought ejectment against the defendants, and the case was tried without jury before the trial court. The trial judge found that the plaintiffs had established a valid record title, subject to defeasance only by the defendants proving adverse possession. The court further found that the defendants had proved adverse possession and were entitled to their respective portions of a thirty foot strip of land, which was the subject of litigation. The questions presented were whether or not the evidence supported, first, the establishment of adverse possession, and seconcf, the establishment of a boundary by acquiescence,
If the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the verdict and the judgment of the trial court, the same will not be disturbed on *912appeal. An examination of the testimony and exhibits in evidence discloses not only that the trial court could have found the verdict reached, but should have so found. Not only have the defendants and their predecessors in title established adverse possession for the statutory period of seven years to the contested lands, but the evidence also discloses that a boundary by acquiescence has been established. F.S.A. § 95.16.
Finding no error in the verdict and judgment of the trial court, the same are affirmed.
Affirmed,
KANNER, Acting C. J., and SHANNON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ideal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Waldrep, 400 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…enumerated above; therefore, the discussion must turn on the question of whether the evidence presented, when viewed with all reasonable inferences in favor of the appealed judgment, supports the findings of the trial court. See Lubrano v. Macauley, 125 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). The evidentiary facts are substantially uncontroverted. On November 23, 1978, Waldrep lent his aircraft to an acquaintance, Ed Harmon, for a one day trip to the Bahamas. Because Harmon had not returned by the next morning, Waldr…
-
Mason v. Martino, 336 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…t there is conflicting evidence on almost every point involved. An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court when there is sufficient evidence to support the judgment entered. See Lubrano v. Macauley, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 911. Affirmed.…
-
Mid-States Ins. Co. v. Clark Alday, 242 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)…rety Corp. v. Windham, Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 549. Where the evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support the finding and judgment of the trial Court, such judgment will not be disturbed on appeal. Lubrano v. Macauley, Fla.App.1961, 125 So. 2d 911; Washington County Kennel Club, Inc. v. Edge, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 512. There were other facets of evidence before the Court touching upon the main factual issue involved but it is unnecessary to detail each and every item here. Suffice to say…