JOSEPHINE GIOVANNIELLI, A WIDOW, AND FRED STREIT AND LORETTA STREIT, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIO LACEDONIA, APPELLEE
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 an ejectment action where the primary dispute was the location of a boundary line between two properties. After a prior appeal determined the issue was a legal one, the case proceeded to a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error despite the appellants' arguments about the verdict and jury instructions.
No, the jury's verdict was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and the jury instructions were not so incorrect or confusing as to constitute reversible error.
“Under the authority cited, we conclude that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law and that the trial court erred in not transferring the cause to the law side of the court after determining that the only issue to be decided was the common boundary line.”
This quote from the prior appeal established that the boundary dispute was a legal issue, necessitating a transfer to the law side of the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants, defendants in the lower court, appealed an adverse judgment in an ejectment action. The core issue was the location of the boundary li…
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 Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the defendants below from an adverse judgment in ejectment. On a prior appeal in this cause (Giovannielli v. Lacedonia, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 506) this court said:
“The real purpose of the instant complaint was to litigate a boundary dispute as is shown by the partial summary decree of June 20, 1963, wherein it was determined that the only issue to be decided was the location of the common boundary line between the property owned by the plaintiff and defendants.
“Under the authority cited, we conclude that the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law and that the trial court erred in not transferring the cause to the law side of the court after determining that the only issue to be decided was the common boundary line. The decision of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded for transfer to the law side of the court.”
At the trial the parties presented conflicting evidence as to the location of the boundary line, relying on different surveys or surveys to different origin. On behalf of the appellants it was ably and earnestly argued that the verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and that charges to the jury were incorrect and confusing. Those contentions, as presented below on motion for new trial, were rejected by an able and experienced trial judge, and on consideration of the record, briefs and argument we find no reversible error has been shown. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giovannielli v. Lacedonia, 214 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1968)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 209 So. 2d 680.…
Authorities Cited
- Giovannielli v. Lacedonia, 177 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)