J. W. HUTCHISON, APPELLANT,
v.
HARRELL'S GROVES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Adverse possession claim based on enclosure since 1922 was improperly dismissed on summary judgment where the sketch submitted was incomplete and the trial court misunderstood the conflicting allegations regarding boundary enclosure.
A summary judgment dismissing an adverse possession claim based on enclosure is improper when the defendant's sketch was not intended to show the entire fence and the record shows the defendant claims the land is enclosed by a fence or natural barrier.
[1] In an adverse possession claim based on enclosure, the enclosing fence need not be located on the boundary of the property claimed in order to perfect title by adverse po…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Hutchison's fence need not be on the boundary of Harrell's Groves' parcel in order to perfect title by adverse possession.”
The court clarified that for adverse possession purposes, the enclosing fence does not need to coincide exactly with the property boundary being claimed.
Hutchison claimed title to approximately 80 acres by adverse possession, alleging enclosure since 1922 within a large pasture that included his other …
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 Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
Hutchison answered appellee’s ejectment action by alleging title to about 80 of its acres by adverse possession. This claim rests upon their enclosure since 1922 within a large pasture which includes Hutchison’s other lands. The trouble is that he appended to his affidavit opposing summary judgment a sketch showing only that portion of his fence which traverses appellee’s land. Appellee’s officers filed an affidavit stating that “Defendant has not fenced the North, West, and South boundaries of the subject property, and has fenced only a portion of the East boundary of the subject property.” The trial judge took this to mean that the fence did not fully enclose the land and granted summary judgment for appellee. This would be proper if Hutchison were held to artistic accuracy, but the record shows that the sketch was not intended to show the entire fence, and that Hutchison is claiming, however artlessly, that appellee cannot enter the disputed land without crossing either Hutchi-son’s fence or a natural barrier which he alleges to be sufficient enclosure.
“Subject property” is shown by the entire record to be a highly ambiguous phrase. Hutchison’s fence need not be on the boundary of Harrell’s Groves’ parcel in order to perfect title by adverse possession. The semantic confusion which ap-pellee caused led an able trial judge into a misunderstanding of the conflicting allegations.
We accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings.
LILES, A. C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.