HomeMy WebLinkAbout2848 , .
1
~
~
i
1
~
•
' ~i -
1
conta ins sor.ie r.?atur~ pa 1 r.? t rees and othe r veyetat i on ~h i ch havP
grown naruraily.
Ir.~nedza*ely to the k~est of the subjer_t easement lies one of
the Third Part~~ Defendant's drainage canals with att~ndant strips
of land on either side used to r.naintain it. Historicall~-, thP
e~ridence showed that the Plainti£fs and other property cwners in
Y_he area, who also benefit from the siibject easement, ut.ilize~]
portior.s of the Third Party Defendant's propei•t}' f02' tF1P]I'
ar_cess, notwithstand~ng the existence of their easer'ient. Sur.h
use has been lnforrially atlowed b~ the Third Party Defendant
ctihich is not uncommon in similar situations in thF~ western
portion of St. I,ucie County.
This dispute reall~ c"~I"05E in 1985 when Defendant started to
r:iake r-~pairs to the subject structiire. Although Plaintiffs ~
initiallv became aware of the encroachraent in 1983, the_y did nc~t
reali2e the extent of it until obtaining a survey in 1985.
Likewise, Defendant thought Yhere r~ay have been an encroachment
before she started the repairs, but was nr~t aware of i_t.s extent
llTlr 1~ t'}lP 1_9Rti 411Yt7P17: F'llrthc~~ ~ :t' ~~~~~i ~ i~ ~u~ i~v4 o T.iu jCii
concern to the Plaintiffs since the structure eaas in disrepair
and they always thought it could be rer.~oved relatively easily.
In fact, Plaintiffs had previously disr_ussed removinq the
structure, at least partially, at their exp~n~e. nbviously, wh~r~
the improvements commenced, thinys chang~d. 7t additi_onal}y
appears that the c~ispute intensified in 1987 when the Thit•d ~arty
Defendant did major maintenance on their canal and placed thf:
resulting spoilage on its land in such a manner th~~t acress was
t
~ R 6 15 PACE ~04~
~ouK
~ . - „y„i=-~~~`' ~~~„~~-a~,u~r~~ i~-~~.~~