GEORGE WALTERS AND NETTIE LEE WALTERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
F. R. LONG AND DORIS LONG, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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 this property boundary dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's judgment finding that plaintiffs own a disputed 33-by-235 foot strip of land between adjoining parcels. The court rejected defendants' argument that a fence line had become the agreed boundary through acquiescence, finding that the fence was merely permitted for livestock containment without any mutual recognition of it as a boundary.
The fence did not become the agreed boundary through acquiescence. The trial court's findings that neither party nor their predecessors recognized or acquiesced in the fence line as the true boundary were supported by competent evidence and not clearly erroneous. Plaintiffs are the owners of the disputed strip.
[1] A boundary line established by acquiescence requires evidence that the parties and their predecessors in title recognized and agreed to the line as the true boundary.
[2] A fence erected for the purpose of containing livestock does not, by itself, establish an agreed-upon boundary line between adjacent landowners.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the fence was never intended to or agreed upon by the adjacent landowners to represent a disputed or uncertain boundary line”
Trial court's critical finding that the fence had no intended boundary function, defeating defendants' acquiescence argument
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs and defendants owned adjoining parcels of approximately ten acres each. A dispute arose over a strip of land measuring approximately 33 fee…
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
Defendants have appealed an adverse final judgment finding title to a disputed strip of real property to be vested in the plaintiffs and granting a writ placing them in possession thereof.
Plaintiffs and defendants own adjoining parcels of land of approximately ten acres each. A dispute arose as to which of the parties own a strip of land measuring approximately 33 feet east and west and 235 feet north and south. The court, sitting as the trier of the facts and the law, found from the evidence that plaintiffs were the owners of the strip of land in question and entitled to its possession.
By their brief defendants analyze the evidence adduced at the trial in a light most favorable to themselves and, by so doing, assert that it establishes the fence separating their land on the east from plaintiffs’ land on the west was agreed to by the parties and their predecessors in title as the correct boundary separating their respective property holdings, and the fence line therefore became by acquiescence the true boundary between their respective parcels. Based upon this analysis of the evidence, appellants contend that they should be adjudged to be the owners of the disputed strip under authority of the decision rendered by this court in Williams v. Johntry1 and the decision by the Supreme Court in Euse v. Gibbs.2 If the undisputed evidence supported appellants’ conception of the facts established at the trial, then the authorities on which they rely would be controlling and require a reversal of the judgment appealed. Such, however, is not the case.
By his final judgment the trial court found from the evidence that a fence was erected on plaintiffs’ land by defendants’ predecessors in title but became deteriorated and partially fell down. After plaintiffs acquired title to their parcel, they consented for defendants to rebuild the fence for the purpose of containing their livestock, but the fence was never intended to or agreed upon by the adjacent landowners to represent a disputed or uncertain boundary line. The court further found from the evidence that neither of the parties to this cause, nor their predecessors in title, ever recognized or acquiesced in the fence line as the true boundary between their respective parcels of land. We find competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings which reach this court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Such findings will not be disturbed in the absence of a demonstration that they are clearly erroneous or constitute an abuse of discretion.3
We have carefully considered appellants’ remaining point on appeal but find it to be without merit. Appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and SPECTOR, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- OLD Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Franklyn Levenson, 177 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Stoller v. Jaffe, 125 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- 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)