HomeMy WebLinkAbout2846 i
f
~
~ 1
,
~ ~
. ,
ioz3o3s 'i
I\ THE CIRCC'IT COC'RT OE THE '
:~I~ETF.E~TH J(,'DICIRL CIRCCIT I~ '
A\D FOR ST. L[,'CIE: COCNT~',
E' LOR I DA .
CASE \O. 87-734 CA13
CARRULL ~~ILI.IA~lS and
DELORES h'ILLIA~IS, his wife
Plaintiffs. ;
c• ~
t~ s . ~
~
~j SHARO\ n. L~tiGEL ~i ~
l c ~
- ~
Defendant: Third Party Plaintif f, '
~ '
~•s. ~t
~ r..
~r, : ; ~
\ORTH ST. LC:CIE RIVER ~~'ATER CO:~TROL • =
DISTRICT f; kia NORTH ST. LL'CIE RIVER -
i DRAI~AGE DISTRICT `
~I
j Third Party Defendant.
,
FI\AL JCDG:~'IE'~T
This Ca1se was tried upan the Plaintiffs' First Ar:~ended
Conplaint. The Third Part} Complaint filed by Defendant was
set~led prior ta the trial. The Court has considered the
i
pleadings, testimony, other evidence, record, post trial
r~emntanc3ums an~ nthPr arrn~c~Pntc nf rrn~ncPl _ T~ hac alcn v;A~A~i
the property in question.
f
Initially, the Court apologizes for the delay in rendering
this decision. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court left
the evidence open to consider whether thP Third Party Defendant
ultimately granted a proposed alternative easement. It heard
nathing further from th~ parties and in March, 1989, wrote
counsel a letter. Again, it did not hear anything further and
as5uroed the parties were working on a mutual resoliition.
e~~s7~ PA~~~$4s
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ :
~ ~ ~ ~~s~ ~
~ _ _ _ ;