EDWARD H. HURT AND JOAN L. HURT, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
VIRGINIA HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION, INC., A CORPORATION EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND NOT FOR PROFIT, PAUL LENCHUK AND HELEN E. LENCHUK, HIS WIFE, JOHN I. KLOCKE AND MARGARET D. KLOCKE, HIS WIFE, AND REX HUFFMAN AND JUNE E. HUFFMAN, HIS WIFE, AND THE CITY OF WINTER PARK, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, WALLIS R. KINNEY AND BARBARA PARSONS KINNEY, HIS WIFE AND CORETTE HOUGH CLARK, 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.
The court clarified its prior decision regarding a vacated street portion in a subdivision. The court held that adjoining property owners received title to the vacated street burdened by a private pedestrian easement for other subdivision residents, and that owners could place obstructions on their property so long as the easement remained usable.
The prior opinion clearly established that adjoining property owners held title to the vacated street burdened by a private pedestrian easement for other subdivision residents, and that these owners should not be enjoined from placing obstructions on their own property so long as such obstructions did not interfere with reasonable enjoyment of the pedestrian easement. The amended judgment failed to comply with this holding due to ambiguous language in the prior opinion.
[1] A prior appellate opinion may be clarified when it contains internal contradictions that prevent a trial court from accurately implementing the appellate court's intent.
[2] When an appellate court's prior opinion contains a self-contradiction, the trial court should vacate any amended judgment that does not conform to the clarified intent of…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We held that the title to the portion of the street which had been lawfully vacated had vested in the defendant appellants as the adjoining property owners, burdened however with a private pedestrian easement in favor of the other property owners in the subdivision.”
Establishes the court's holding on title and property rights regarding the vacated street
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants sought clarification of an amended judgment following a prior appeal (Hurt v. Lenchuk, 223 So.2d 350) concerning a vacated portion of a…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants, who were also appellants in Hurt v. Lenchuk, Fla.App. 1969, 223 So.2d 350, appeal from the amended judgment entered by the court after the going down of our mandate, complaining that the amended judgment did not comply with our prior opinion in this case.
Appellants are correct, but the fault does not lie with the trial court. Our prior opinion contains a self contradiction which prevented our views from being clearly expressed and which understandably placed the trial court in a quandary. We held that the title to the portion of the street which had been lawfully vacated had vested in the defendant appellants as the adjoining property owners, burdened however with a private pedestrian easement in favor of the other property owners in the subdivision. We also held that the defendant appellants, as owners of the fee, should not be enjoined from placing obstructions on their own property so long as any such did not interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of the private easement. We intended that any portion of the final judgment inconsistent with such views be reversed. Unfortunately, we obscured this intent when we attempted to itemize in the final paragraph of the opinion those portions of the judgment which were to be reversed and in so doing failed to specifically itemize that portion of the judgment which had enjoined the defendants from thereafter placing planting or obstruction upon the vacated area of the street. This enigma would have been avoided had we simply stated that the judgment was reversed to the extent that it was inconsistent with our opinion, since language elsewhere in the opinion is clear to the effect that the defendant appellants should not be enjoined from placing obstructions upon their own property.
The opinion, taken in its entirety, sets forth the rights which the respective parties have in and to the “park” and the vacated area of the street. Through no fault of the trial court the amended final judgment does not conform to the law of this case as we have determined it to be. Justice requires that the amended final judgment be vacated and this cause remanded for entry of an amended final judgment consistent with the intent of our opinion in 223 So.2d 350 as herein clarified. Upon remand the trial court is authorized in its discretion to entertain such further proceedings as will enable it to include in the amended final judgment definitive limits on the location and width of the pedestrian easement with which the vacated portion of the street is burdened. Kingdon v. Walker, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 208.
The amended final judgment is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CROSS, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dotson v. Wolfe, 391 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…able license, rather than an easement subject to a condition and, therefore, denied Count II. We remand to the trial court for such further proceedings as will enable it to define the width of the easement. See Hurt v. Virginia Heights Assoc., Inc., 244 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Kingdon v. Walker, 156 So. 2d 208 (Fla.2d DCA 1963). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and remanded. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and CO-WART, JJ., concur.…
-
Castlewood Int'l Corp. v. Wynne, 305 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1974)…merous industries and retail vendors involved. Article V, Sec. 3, Florida Constitution. Wright v. Board of Public Instruction, 100 So. 2d 403, Fla.1957; South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 107 So. 2d 30, Fla.1958; Hurt v. Virginia Heights Association, 244 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th Dist.1971). The maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied” is fully recognized by our Court and we have consistently attempted to minimize it by placing our cases in the “jet stream”. A rehash of the initial Castlewood case, supra, w…
-
Dep't OF Transp. v. Burnette, 399 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…. Where the language of an opinion is susceptible to various inferences or even contains self-contradictions on its face, however, a district court may properly indicate what was intended by its prior decision. E. g., Hurt v. Virginia Heights Ass’n, 244 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 153 So. 2d 344 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). At an appropriate time, an appellate court in fact has an obligation to trial courts to clarify its opinions. Maeder v. Grayson, 227 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1969).…
Authorities Cited
- Consumer Fin. Corp. OF Am. v. Remodeling, Inc., 156 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Hurt v. Lenchuk, 223 So. 2d 350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)