GEORGE KOSABER, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES S. PETERSON AND MATILDA PETERSON, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court's ejectment judgment but reversed the award of $35 in damages, finding it unsupported by evidence and not an allowable element in an ejectment action.
Yes, the property description was sufficient. No, the $35 award for survey costs was not a proper element of damages in an ejectment action.
“The description of the property in the complaint and in the verdict and judgment was sufficient to meet the requirements of § 70.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for a description by metes and bounds, lot number "or other certain description".”
Establishes that the property description met statutory requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellees (plaintiffs) won an ejectment action against appellant (defendant) concerning a property line dispute. The jury returned a verdict for the a…
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 Metes And Bounds Description cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees prevailed in an ejectment action involving a dispute as to the location of a property line between lots, and the defendant appealed. The evidence supports the verdict. The description of the property in the complaint and in the verdict and judgment was sufficient to meet the requirements of § 70.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for a description by metes and bounds, lot number “or other certain description”. See Florida Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Robbins, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 193. The $35 damages included in the verdict and judgment is not supported by the evidence. Appellees’ brief concedes it was not for loss of use or for rental value, but was for the cost of a survey. That was not an allowable element of damages under the ejectment statute, §§ 70.01-70.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The judgment is affirmed except as to the damages of $35 awarded therein as to which it is reversed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.