BRUCE MCCORMICK, APPELLANT,
v.
ANNA MCCORMICK, A/K/A ANNA SENFT, 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.
In this property dispute, the trial court found that two parties each owned an undivided one-half interest in a trailer park but then permanently enjoined the plaintiff from entering the property despite her co-ownership status. The appellate court held that such an injunction violates fundamental property law principles protecting joint owners' equal rights to possession and use.
Joint owners of property are generally entitled to equal use, benefit, and possession. A permanent injunction prohibiting a co-owner from entering property in which she holds an undivided interest, without any established exception such as a divorce-related support arrangement, is improper and violates fundamental property law principles. The injunction must be vacated.
“Joint owners of property are generally entitled to equal use, benefit, and possession of that property.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle governing rights of co-owners in property disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBruce McCormick and Anna McCormick (Senft) disputed ownership of a trailer park. The trial court found that each party owned an undivided one-half int…
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 Right Of Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
The court below resolved many disputes of fact and reached a conclusion that the two parties involved were each owners of an undivided one-half interest in a trailer park. We find that there was sufficient evidence to support this conclusion and that the trial court did not err as a matter of law in so ruling.
The final judgment, however, permanently enjoined the plaintiff from entering the trailer park of which she was by the same judgment declared to be a one-half owner. This relief was not requested by defendant in his answer. There was a claim that the parties were common law husband and wife but the trial court found that this count was not established by the evidence. As it is clear that the parties have reached a falling out, the court retained jurisdiction to entertain a supplementary petition for partition should one be filed.
Joint owners of property are generally entitled to equal use, benefit, and possession of that property. 86 C.J.S. Tenancy in Common §§ 20 and 25. A common exception where the divorced wife is given temporary exclusive possession of the marital home as a part of the husband’s duty of support is not applicable here as no marriage was established, no divorce was granted, and the woman is the one who is enjoined from entry. While the plaintiff’s attorney has been and is still serving as receiver to collect the rentals due her, this does not authorize the court to give preference to the defendant by permitting him to have exclusive possession. Although partition may be probable, it is by no means certain and the injunction is by its terms permanent. To permit such an injunction to stand would result in a new form of title to which there is an immediate right to possession but a court prohibition against enforcing this right. Such a situation is intolerable in property law.
That portion of the final judgment below permanently restraining plaintiff from entering the trailer park is vacated and set aside. The remainder of the judgment is affirmed.
Reversed, in part; affirmed, in part.
WALDEN, C. J., and McCAIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Groh v. Hasencamp, 407 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ce did not clearly establish this fact, and formal partition of the property was not accomplished until after the accident. As co-owners, Phil and Lorraine were each entitled to equal use, benefit and possession of the whole. McCormick v. McCormick, 220 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Lorraine thus had the authority individually to consent to stabling of the horse on the property and the record demonstrates that such consent was indeed given. The evidence would also appear to support a finding of implied con…