HARRY STALLWORTH AND PATRICIA STALLWORTH
v.
LEGACY RENTALS, LLC
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 Stallworths did not establish all necessary elements to prove adverse possession of the property.
[1] To establish adverse possession, the possessor must demonstrate that the use was not permissive, and actual use is presumed permissive unless the user provides clear, pos…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is essential to a finding of adverse possession that the possessor's use not be permissive. Actual use is presumed permissive and the user has the burden to demonstrate that his use was without permission.”
Court citing Turner v. Wheeler regarding the permissive nature of use in adverse possession claims
The Stallworths purchased property in 1987 with a vacant lot behind it owned by Camillus House, separated by a chain link fence on Camillus House's pr…
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0646 Lower Tribunal No. 20-25433-CA-01 ________________
Harry Stallworth and Patricia Stallworth, Appellants,
vs.
Legacy Rentals, LLC, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.
The Orlofsky Law Firm, P.L., and Alexander S. Orlofsky, for appellants.
Law Office of Ray Garcia, P.A., Ray Garcia, and Nataline Garcia, for appellee.
Before SCALES, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
The Appellants Harry and Patricia Stallworth purchased property in 1987. There was a vacant lot behind the property that was owned and maintained by Camillus House. At the time, there was a chain link fence separating certain areas—but located on Camillus House’s property. At some point, the Stallworths replaced the chain link with a wood fence. In 2020, the Appellee Legacy Rentals, LLC purchased the vacant lot from Camillus House. Shortly thereafter, Legacy Rentals received a notice of a code violation for the wooden fence. It attempted to remove the fence. But the Stallworths sought emergency injunctive relief claiming adverse possession of the area within the wood fence. Legacy Rentals moved for summary judgment alleging the absence of evidence to support a claim for adverse possession. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 193 (Fla. 2020); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–25 (1986). The trial court agreed and entered final summary judgment for Legacy Rental. This appeal followed. Because we similarly find that the Stallworths did not establish all necessary elements to prove adverse possession, we affirm. See § 95.16, Fla. Stat. (1994); Douglass v. Aldridge, 105 So. 145, 146 (Fla. 1925) (“[T]he possession must have been for the full statutory period, under claim of right or color of title, and must have been actual, open, visible, notorious,
3 continuous, and hostile to the true owner and to the world at large.”); Turner v. Wheeler, 498 So. 2d 1039, 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“It is essential to a finding of adverse possession that the possessor’s use not be permissive. Actual use is presumed permissive and the user has the burden to demonstrate that his use was without permission. Permissive use can become adverse, but only upon clear, positive and distinct notification of the owner by the permissive user that he is claiming the property other than by permission.”) (internal citation omitted). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- In re Amendments to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192 (Fla. 2020)
- Douglass v. Aldridge, 90 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1925)
- Lucile J. Turner v. Idell C. Wheeler, 498 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)