HomeMy WebLinkAbout2849 . ~
i
!
~
~
~
~
\
• ~
, ~
~ ~ ,
blocked. The Coui-t notes this action was filed in 19$7.
To date, Defendant has expended approximately $4,Ei00.00 t~
inprove the structure and estimates tltat it wou]d cost $?,Ot)0.00
- 53,000.00 to complete it. However, St. Lucie Count~~ stopped
her fror.~ completing it. The evidence showed that it would cost
appro~iMately $6,OU0.00 to remove the encroaching portion c~f t:he
structure. However, that does not include any costs necessary tc~
maintain the integriY.y of the remaining portion af the building.
'~or daes it consider the palm trees and other vegetation.
Plaintiffs estimate the current value of their property,
c.ith proper access, to be at least $I75,000.00. Although they
F hare obtained a mortgage loan in the past, there is no question
1 in the Court's nind that the existence of the enr_roachment on the
~f ,
easenent creates a titie probler~.
' The Third Party De£endant has offered another easerient Yo
~ Plai*~tiffs. However, they object since their rights would be
subject to those of the Third Party Defendant and they would have
certain affirr~ati.ve duties.
°COtiCLLSIOtiS"
Plaintiffs seek a r~andatory injunction, including remo~~al of
the structure, and a declaration of their riyhts. Defendant has
~
s
raised a number af affi.rmative defenses.
This is a material encroachrnent. Thus, the doctrine
utili_zed in Robinson v. Feltus, 68 Sa. ?d 815 (Fla. 1953) does
not appear to be applicable.
However, there are a nur~ber of equitable factors whirh the
Caurt feels are r.sarerial. Defer-~danL did not huild the ~riginal
structure, contrary ta facts in Hoff Scott, 453 So. 2d 2(Ela.
$ao~ 675 PA~~ ~8~9
. _ _ _ . _ _
. _ . : . ti:~~.~- ~~~i~€1~'^c~.r ~'b,e ' ~e~ :'~~.~z-» ~