GULF POWER COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT GLASS AND PAULINE GLASS, 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.
Gulf Power Company sought a mandatory injunction to remove wrecked cars stored on its transmission line easement. The trial court denied the injunction, finding the cars readily removable and the Glasses' use inconsistent with Gulf Power's rights only if they failed to promptly remove vehicles upon request. The appellate court reversed, holding that Gulf Power had a clear legal right to keep the easement clear and faced irreparable harm from potential emergency repair delays.
Gulf Power is entitled to the mandatory injunction. The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded with instructions to grant the injunction. A mandatory injunction is proper where a clear legal right is at stake, irreparable harm is threatened, and the remedy at law is inadequate. Gulf Power has a clear legal right shown in the plain terms of the easement to keep the area free of obstruction, and the two- to four-hour delay in emergency repairs constitutes irreparable harm.
[1] An easement granting the right to install, maintain, and use transmission lines and associated structures includes the right to keep the easement clear of obstructions.
[2] A landowner's use of an easement strip is inconsistent with the grantee's rights when it relies on the landowner's future willingness and ability to promptly remove obstr…
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“A mandatory injunction is proper where a clear legal right is at stake, irreparable harm is threatened, and the remedy at law is inadequate.”
Establishes the three-part test for whether a mandatory injunction should be granted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGulf Power Company held an easement 100 feet wide across the Glasses' property for transmission lines and poles, with express rights to keep the strip…
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 Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gulf Power bought an easement for transmission lines and poles 100 feet wide through the Glass’ property. The easement included “all rights and privileges necessary or convenient for the full enjoyment or use thereof . . . including the right of ingress and egress from said strip and the right to . keep clear all . obstruction on said strip . . . and the right to install, maintain and use anchors and guy wires on land adjacent to said strip.” The grantors retained “the right to cultivate and use said strip of land for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights which the grantee may from time to time exercise hereunder.” Subsequently, Mr. Glass went into the used car parts business and placed more than 50 wrecked cars in close rows on the easement property. Gulf Power requested Glass to clear the easement and, when he did not do so, Gulf Power brought an action for a mandatory injunction requiring that he do so.
Gulf Power appeals from the trial court’s judgment which denied the injunction because:
“2. These automobiles are readily removable and the defendants have agreed to remove them when reasonably requested for the necessity of servicing and maintaining the plaintiff’s wires and structures.
“3. The court further finds that the defendants’ use of said easement is not inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiff.”
We reverse. A mandatory injunction is proper where a clear legal right is at stake, irreparable harm is threatened, and the remedy at law is inadequate. Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253, 103 So. 625 (1925); Kellerman v. Chase & Co., 101 Fla. 785, 135 So. 127 (1931). Gulf Power’s legal right to have the area free of obstruction is shown here in the plain terms of the easement grant. Moreover, the undisputed evidence shows that Gulf Power and its customers would suffer a two-to four-hour delay in the repair of the transmission lines on this property in an emergency because of the need to clear away the cars. The trial court’s finding that Appellees’ storage of this automotive junk on the land is not inconsistent with Gulf Power’s rights is predicated on the assumption that Appel-lees would at all times be ready, willing and able to remove the cars promptly. This holding rests Gulf Power’s enjoyment of its easement on too conjectural a base. The case is remanded with instructions that the trial court grant the injunction.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shaw v. Tampa Elec. Co., 949 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ar legal right has been violated, irreparable harm has been threatened, and there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law.” Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Weinstein, 447 So. 2d 345, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (citing Gulf Power Co. v. Glass, 355 So. 2d 147, 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)); see also Kellerman v. Chase & Co., 101 Fla. 785, 135 So. 127 (1931). Additionally, the granting of a mandatory injunction is proper where it will not disserve the public interest. See Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 56 Fl…
-
Ronald W. Kitzinger and Delores v. Kitzinger, 432 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…would likely not be granted without proof of present interference with an existing use of the easement. For example, we may doubt that this court would have mandato-rily enjoined the removal of the wrecked automobiles in Gulf Power Company v. Glass, 355 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), had they not constituted a present interference with access for emergency repairs to the lines. The statement in McCorquodale v. Keyton, 63 So. 2d 906, 910 (Fla.1953), “If a person’s rights are invaded — as they were here — the…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. of the State of Fla. v. Myron Weinstein, 447 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…specific job with its agency at a specific location. A mandatory injunction is proper where a clear legal right has been violated, irreparable harm has been threatened, and there is a lack of an adequate remedy at law. Gulf Power Company v. Glass, 355 So. 2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Dania Jai Alai International, Inc. v. Murua, 375 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We have reviewed the record on appeal and find that the requirements necessary for the issuance of an injunction were not met. There has been no…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Zetrouer v. Zetrouer, 89 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1925)
- DuBose v. E. P. Parker as Town Marshal, 89 Fla. 334 (Fla. 1925)
- E. H. Kellerman & Frank Whitelock v. Chase & Co., 101 Fla. 785 (Fla. 1931)