JACOB P. REIL AND OSA REIL, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DAVID D. MYERS AND ROSE ANN MYERS, 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.
In a boundary line dispute between neighboring property owners, the Florida appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the boundary had been established by agreement rather than by survey's true line. The court held that once neighboring property owners agree upon a boundary line and act in accordance with that agreement, the agreed line becomes binding and enforceable against successors in title.
The court held that where neighboring property owners are uncertain or dispute the true boundary line and agree upon a certain line as the permanent boundary, followed by actual occupation and compliance with that agreement for a sufficient period of time, the agreed line becomes binding upon the parties and their successors in title.
“While title to real estate cannot be transferred by verbal agreement, yet, where the boundary between contiguous lands is uncertain or disputed, the owners of such lands may agree upon a certain line as a permanent boundary line, and where the agreement is followed by actual occupation according to such line as the boundary, the line will be binding upon them and their successors in title, as the boundary.”
Establishes the foundational principle that boundary lines can be established by agreement even though title cannot be transferred by verbal agreement alone.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1962, the Reils and Myerses were uncertain about the exact boundary line between their adjacent properties. A surveyor named W. D. Bruner pointed o…
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 Boundary By Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
This case involves a boundary line dispute. The court, after a non-jury trial, found for the defendants, holding that the boundary line between the adjoining properties had been established by agreement, even though not on the true line as shown by a subsequent survey, and that defendants had also acquired title to a portion of the disputed property by adverse possession. We affirm.
The facts were in dispute but there is competent, substantial evidence to sustain the court’s expressed findings of fact as follows: In 1962 the plaintiffs and defendants were uncertain as to the exact location of the boundary line separating their properties and at that time specifically agreed to accept as the boundary between them a line as pointed out to them by a surveyor, one W. D. Bruner; thereupon the defendants went into possession and occupied the property on their side of the line, erecting a fence along a portion of the agreed boundary line, and the plaintiffs accepted the line and for two years made no effort to disturb the possession of the defendants.
While title to real estate cannot be transferred by verbal agreement, yet, where the boundary between contiguous lands is uncertain or disputed, the owners of such lands may agree upon a certain line as a permanent boundary line, and where the agreement is followed by actual occupation according to such line as the boundary, the line will be binding upon them and their successors in title, as the boundary.1
The necessary elements for establishment of boundary by agreement are: (1) uncertainty or dispute as to the true boundary, (2) an agreement that a certain line will be treated by the parties as the true line, and (3) subsequent compliance by the parties with that agreement for a period of time sufficient to show a settled recognition of the line as the permanent boundary.2 The court found all of these elements present in this case.
The doctrine of boundary by agreement, which was clearly applicable *44and correctly applied in the instant case, is, of course, separate and distinct from the doctrine of establishment of boundary by acquiescence, and the two should not be, but unfortunately frequently are, confused.3
Holding as we do that the court correctly applied the doctrine of boundary by agreement in entering judgment for the defendants, it becomes unnecessary to consider whether the defendants also acquired title to a portion of the same property through means of adverse possession under color of title.
Affirmed.
CROSS and REED, TJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Von King v. Carden, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…d change the boundary described in their respective conveyances, and the true line should prevail. Reversed. SPECTOR, J., concurs. JOHNSON, C. J., dissents, with opinion. . Watrous v. Morrison, 332 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805 (1894), and Reil v. Myers, 222 So. 2d 42 (Fla.App. 4th 1969). . Holley v. May, 75 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1954); McRae Land & Timber Co. v. Ziegler, 65 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1953); James W. Day, The Validation of Erroneously Located Boundaries by Adverse Possession and Related Doctrines, 10 U.Fla.L.Rev…
-
Seddon v. Edmondson, 411 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…agreement” and “boundary by acquiescence” share a common element: the existence of uncertainty or dispute or doubt over the location of a common boundary. Kerrigan v. Thomas, 281 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); King, 237 So. 2d at 28; Rei v. Myers, 222 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). It is clear that Mrs. Edmondson was an “interested person” under the applicable statute, since she would gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. See Broward Nat’l. Bank of Ft. Lauderdale v. Bear, 125…
-
Ferrin C. Campbell, Sr. v. Millicent Pate Noel and sole beneficiary under the will, 490 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e boundary, his occupancy according to the fence continued. Thus, the occupancy period lasted at least five years, and arguably longer. Boundaries by agreement have been found in Florida where occupancy was for as little as two years. Reil v. Myers, 222 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). A boundary by acquiescence cannot be found since that doctrine requires continued occupancy and acquiescence in the boundary line for more than seven years. King v. Carden, supra. Assuming that Campbell began occupancy and acqu…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1894)
- Williams v. Thelma E. Johntry and her husband, 214 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)
- Euse v. Gibbs, 49 So.2d 843 (Fla. 1951)
- Reuben S. Williams v. Pichard, 150 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1942)
- Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Broward Cnty. v. Boehm, 138 Fla. 548 (Fla. 1939)