HomeMy WebLinkAbout2850 ~
~
1
-
~ 5th DCA, 1984>, where appellee placed the offendiny structures on
the property, and ~lonell v Golfview Road Associatic,n, 359 So. 2d
' tFla. 4th DCA, 1978), where appellee placed speed hur~ps on a
private road. In this case, the original structure was built
alr~ost 15 ~•ears before the common grantor created the easer.~ent.
' and, thus, created the encroachment. Nevertheless, thz Court
recognizes that Defendant did cornmence to inprove the structure,
f
~ with knowledge that there was probably an encroachment.
' In addition, Plaintiffs could have addressed the probler~ if
they had obtained a full survey when they purchased their
i
i
i prc~pe rt~- .
Further, the easer.zent in yuestion zs obviously a straiyht
i
j strip of land, 20 fEet in c.idth. It is clear from viewing the
i
l ~
access path ~.hich has historicall~- been utilized, thar. t.he
~
t straight easer~ent granted to Plaintiffs has not hP_Pp the c~I?e
used. Everyone knew that the Tl:ird Party Defendant's land was
being partially used.
~
~ Plaintiffs had also discussed rPr:~oving the structure, in
~
i
part, at their expense. However, once again, the Court notes the
situation was accelerated when Defendant started to improve it,
E thereby ab~iously inter~ding to make it a permanent useful
~
i
fixture, as opposed to some deteriorated building that could be
~
rer~oved at the convenienr_e of i~terested property ~,wners, if
circunstancPS necessitated it (eg. a ct~ange in the infornal
position of the Third Party Defen~ant in not objer_t;.ng to the use .
of its canal right-of-way.j.
That also leads the Court to nate a r_or.uaenY in Robinson,
~ supra. at 816, dealing with refei•ence to the surrounding
goo~675 PAGE2~~~ ~
~ -
g ~ _ _ _ _
~ ~ ~~~`"~>P -