FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ALAN S. RADER, TRUSTEE, 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.
Florida Power & Light Company (FP&L) appealed a judgment requiring it to commence condemnation proceedings for an easement over property containing its electric transmission lines. The court reversed, holding that FP&L's unrecorded easement was enforceable against the current owner based on open and obvious possession of the power lines, which constituted constructive notice.
The unrecorded easement was valid and enforceable against the subsequent owner because the open and obvious possession of the power lines and poles constituted constructive notice to all the world. Inverse condemnation was not available because FP&L occupied the property with lawful authority pursuant to a valid easement from the predecessor in title.
[1] Actual, open, and obvious possession of land constitutes constructive notice of the occupant's rights, obligating purchasers to inquire into the nature of those rights.
[2] A purchaser of property is charged with notice of visible conditions on the land, regardless of whether they understood the implications of those conditions at the time o…
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“Actual, open and obvious possession is constructive notice to all the world of whatever right the occupant has in the land, and puts upon inquiry those acquiring any title to or lien upon the land so occupied to ascertain the nature of the rights the occupant has in the premises.”
Establishes the legal principle that visible occupation constitutes constructive notice regardless of whether the new owner had actual knowledge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFP&L entered the property in 1944 and constructed electric power transmission lines pursuant to a valid but unrecorded written easement from the then-…
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 Power Of Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Chief Judge.
The final judgment in this action for inverse condemnation required the defendant (appellant herein) to commence condemnation proceedings to acquire an easement over that portion of the plaintiff-appellee’s property upon which defendant had constructed and was maintaining electric power transmission lines and related poles, guys and anchors. We reverse.
Appellant’s original entry upon the property in 1944, and its subsequent construction, operation and maintenance of its electric power transmission lines, were all pursuant to a valid but unrecorded written easement from the then owner of the property (a predecessor in title to appellee), executed with the formalities required for conveying property and granting to appellant “the right to set out and maintain poles and anchors for an electric transmission and distribution line, and the necessary appurtenances for such lines”.
The trial court concluded, apparently on the basis of Section 695.01(1), F. S., that appellant’s failure to record the easement deprived appellee, who purchased the property in 1959, of either actual or constructive notice of the easement, and therefore the easement was ineffectual as against appellee. Such conclusion is contrary to appellee’s testimony to the effect that prior to purchasing the property he had made a visual inspection of it and had seen the power lines and poles in question. Actual, open and obvious possession is constructive notice to all the world of whatever right the occupant has in the land, and puts upon inquiry those acquiring any title to or lien upon the land so occupied to ascertain the nature of the rights the occupant has in the premises. Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., Fla. 1948, 38 So. 2d 43; Marion Mortgage Co. v. Grennan, 1932, 106 Fla. 913, 143 So. 761, 87 A.L.R. 1492; Tate v. Pensacola Gulf, Land & Development Co., 1896, 37 Fla. 439, 20 So. 542.
It is true that at the time appellee inspected the premises and observed the presence of the electric power transmission lines he was uncertain as to the boundary line of the property and, therefore, did not then know that the transmission lines were on the property. It is also true that the survey which was prepared at his request (and examined by him before closing the sale) did not reflect the location of the transmission lines. The fact remains, however, that the electric power transmission lines ivere on the property and were open, obvious and visible. Appellee was charged with notice of that which was there to he seen, irrespective of whether he actually knew of such possession. Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Laws, Fla.App. 1973, 272 So. 2d 841; Moore v. Choctawhatchee Electric Co-operative, Inc., Fla.App. 1967, 196 So. 2d 788; Vincent v. Hines, 1920, 79 Fla. 564, 84 So. 614; Tate v. Pensacola Gulf, Land and Development Company, supra.
The right to inverse condemnation exists when the State, or a corporate entity possessed of the power of eminent domain, has taken private property without lawful authority and without formal exercise of its power of eminent domain. City of Jacksonville v. Schumann, Fla.App. 1964, 167 So. 2d 95. Appellant’s occupancy and use of a portion of appellee’s land having been with lawful authority, i. e., pursuant to and in conformity with a valid easement granted it by appellee’s predecessor in title, appellee was not entitled to a judgment of inverse condemnation. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to enter judgment for defendant-appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ.,' concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDONALD v. McGOWAN, 402 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…. Henderson Development Co., Inc. v. Gerrits, 340 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 948 (Fla. 1977). Only rarely is the record so clear that a judgment can be directed as a matter of law. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Rader, 306 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); O’Neal v. Coral Gables, 294 So. 2d 102 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 303 So. 2d 640 (Fla.1974). Where as in this case, there are conflicting inferences to be drawn from the circumstances, where there is a means of learning about a…
-
Holland v. J.M. Hattaway, 438 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)….W., Inc. v. Ottati, 391 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (where agent of subsequent purchaser had actual knowledge of unrecorded written lease of first purchaser, subsequent purchaser was not “without notice”). Cf. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Rader, 306 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (where power line easement was visible and subsequent purchaser saw them, subsequent purchaser took “with notice” even though written easement was unrecorded). . See, e.g., Cain & Bultman, Inc. v. Miss Sam, Inc., supra note 18;…
-
Procacci v. Zacco, 324 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…e conveyance, there was no evidence of any use of the described land strip, no evidence of necessity and no evidence of any permanent structure on the described strip. See Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 (Fla.1958); Fla. Power and Light Co. v. Rader, 306 So. 2d 565 (4thDCA Fla.1975); Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. v. Kearsley, 299 So. 2d 75 (1stDCA Fla.1974); Reyes v. Perez, 284 So. 2d 493 (4thDCA Fla.1973); Lovey v. Escambia County, 141 So. 2d 761 (1stDCA Fla.1962); Kirma v. Norton, 102 So. 2d 653 (2dDCA Fla.1958…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tate v. Pensacola, 37 Fla. 439 (Fla. 1896)
- Vincent v. Walker D. Hines, 79 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1920)
- Marion Mortgate Co. v. Grennan, 106 Fla. 913 (Fla. 1932)
- Charles W. Alden and wife v. W. Coast Title Co. & Lawyers' Title Ins. Corp., 167 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Bee Bee Realty Co. v. Maud I. Struse, 106 Fla. 706 (Fla. 1932)
- Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., 38 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1948)
- Moore v. Choctawhatchee Elec. Co-Operative, Inc., 196 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)
- Humble OIL & Ref. Co. v. Laws, 272 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)