COPPEDGE TERMINAL CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND UNIVERSITY COUNTRY CLUB, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM C. HILL, 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.
Affirmed judgment for plaintiff in ejectment action where conflicting surveyor testimony was properly submitted to jury and defendants failed to properly plead estoppel defense.
Where surveyor testimony conflicts on a material issue of title, the question is properly submitted to the jury, and a trial court does not err in refusing an estoppel instruction when the defense was not properly pleaded.
[1] An affirmative defense of estoppel must be properly pleaded in accordance with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.110(d) or the trial court may refuse a jury instruc…
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 intelligenceHill brought an ejectment action against Coppedge Terminal Corporation and University Country Club, Inc. The parties presented conflicting expert surv…
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 Title To Real Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Hill instituted this action in ejectment and recovered a judgment against defendants. By this appeal defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to submit the question of plaintiff’s title to the jury and that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the question of estoppel.
The extensive record in this case reflects a material difference of opinion between the respective surveyors for plaintiff and defendants. Each of the surveyors was qualified, and since their testimony was in conflict, the question was a proper one for consideration by the jury. The evidence as a whole fails to support defendants’ theory on this appeal as to the question of estoppel. Furthermore, defendants failed to plead in accordance with *744the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.110(d), 30 F.S.A., the affirmative defense of estoppel, and under these circumstances we hold that the trial judge was not in error in refusing to grant defendants’ requested instruction on the doctrine of estoppel. Our review of this record reflects that the issues were joined, the case fairly tried, and the verdict of the jury is supported by competent substantial evidence. It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.
The judgment appealed is affirmed.
JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.