CHARLES H. VAN IDERSTYNE, APPELLANT,
v.
BRUMOS PORSCHE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
CHARLES H. VAN IDERSTYNE, APPELLANT,
BRUMOS PORSCHE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
227 So. 2d 64
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1969)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
This cause having been orally argued before the court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. F.S. Section 725.01, F.S.A.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeROCHE v. Winski, 409 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…ment relied upon to show color of title must be recorded (§ 95.16, Fla.Stat.) and it must purport to convey the land in question by a legally sufficient description. Mitchell v. Moore, 152 Fla. 843, 13 So. 2d 314 (1943); Armstrong Cork Co. v. Crook, 227 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). Appellees could not qualify under either of the two methods for establishing adverse possession. They did not have paper title to the strip in question and, as a consequence, they had not paid taxes on it. The court below erred…
-
Shultz v. Johnson, 654 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…n January 1, 1975, and December 31, 1987. § 95.16, Fla.Stat. (1977). Each essential element of adverse possession must be established by clear and positive proof. Bailey v. Hagler, 575 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Armstrong Cork Company v. Crook, 227 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). Herein, our review of the record below reveals no clear and positive proof of the essential element of substantial enclosure. Consequently, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion. The order vacating the jury verdict…