CORRIGANS, SIDNEY D. ANSIN, RO-ED CORPORATION AND ANWELT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
SEBASTIAN RIVER DRAINAGE DISTRICT, A DRAINAGE DISTRICT ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE GENERAL DRAINAGE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's declaratory decree interpreting a 1942 drainage easement granted by Sebastian River Drainage District to landowners' predecessor in title. The court upheld the trial court's conclusion that the defendants' drainage rights were limited solely to those granted in the easement, rejecting their counterclaim that the easement substituted for natural drainage rights.
The court held that the defendants' drainage rights are solely limited to those accruing from the written easement itself, and the trial court properly interpreted the easement based on the character of the dominant and servient land, its use, and the situation of the parties at the time of creation.
“The trial court based its interpretation of the easement on evidence relating to the character of the dominant and servient land, its use, and the situation of the parties to the easement, at the time the easement was created. Such is an authorized means of interpreting easements which are ambiguous or expressed in general terms.”
Establishes the proper methodology for interpreting ambiguous easements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1942, Sebastian River Drainage District conveyed a drainage easement to Graves Brothers Company, the defendants' predecessor in title, allowing dra…
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 Easement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final decree of the Circuit Court for Indian River County, State of Florida, in a suit brought by the plaintiff, Sebastian River Drainage District, to obtain a declaratory decree as to the rights and duties of the plaintiff and defendants under a written drainage easement. The easement had been conveyed in 1942 by the plaintiff to Graves Brothers Company, the defendants’ predecessor in title to the land served by the easement. The easement was for the purpose of draining surface water from a large tract of land into a ditch owned by the plaintiff and located on a strip of land adjacent to the west side of the Sebastian River Drainage District. The north half of the tract is presently owned by the defendants Sidney D. Ansin, Ro-Ed Corporation and Anwelt Corporation and the south half is owned by the defendants Hugh Corrigan, C. E. Cor-rigan, his wife, Hugh Corrigan, III, and J. Pat Corrigan. By counterclaims, the defendants alleged ownership of the easement and, in effect, that it was a substitute for their natural rights of drainage across the land owned by the plaintiff. The counter claims demanded a declaratory decree clarifying the defendants’ rights to drain their property into the ditch as well as the plaintiff’s duty to maintain the ditch.
The trial court based its interpretation of the easement on evidence relating to the character of the dominant and servient land, its use, and the situation of the parties to the easement, at the time the easement was created. Such is an authorized means of interpreting easements which are ambiguous or expressed in general terms. Kotick v. Durrant, Fla.1940, 143 Fla. 386, 196 So. 802; Robinson v. Feltus, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 815; Kingdon v. Walker, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 208. On the basis of such evidence and the language of the written easement, the trial court arrived at its conclusions as to the intention of the parties at the time the easement was conveyed. This was the proper measure of the rights and duties created by the easement. Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., Fla.1954, 69 So. 2d 328.
Although there were conflicts in the evidence, the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by competent substantial *59evidence and its conclusions reached by the correct application of well established principles of law. From our review of the record, and particularly the easement and deed restrictions in the defendants'" chain of title, we conclude that the drainage rights of the defendants on the land of the plaintiff were solely limited to those rights accruing from the easement in question, and we find no clear error in the trial court’s declaration of those rights: '
What was said in Dade County v. South Dade Farms, 1938, 133 Fla. 288, 182 So. 858, at page 862, applies equally here:
“It seems that the lower court did its very best to do substantial justice as between the parties with a very stubborn set of facts.”
For the foregoing reasons, the final decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., REED, J., and MUR-PHREE, JOHN A. H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)…appellee to pave or otherwise improve the easement way in a manner detrimental to appellant’s adjacent grove. See Choctawhatchee Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Moore, 220 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage District, 223 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). AFFIRMED. BOYER, Acting C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.…
-
Am. Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt, 899 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…ject matter of the contract, of the relation of the parties, and of the circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the contract may be received in order to properly interpret the instrument.”); Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage Dist., 223 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969) (“The trial court based its [*468] interpretation of the easement on evidence relating to the character of the dominant and servient land, its use, and the situation of the parties to the easement, at the time the easement wa…
-
Tortoise Island Cmtys., Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…making such a showing. The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328 (Fla.1954); Corrigans v. Sebastian River Drainage District, 223 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Crutchfield v. F. A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 1954)
- Kotick v. Durrant, 143 Fla. 386 (Fla. 1940)
- Dade Cnty. v. S. Dade Farms, Inc., 133 Fla. 288 (Fla. 1938)
- Robinson v. Feltus, 68 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1953)
- Consumer Fin. Corp. OF Am. v. Remodeling, Inc., 156 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)