Dinkins v. Julian, 1543

Citation122 So.2d 620
Decision Date26 August 1960
Docket NumberNo. 1543,1543
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
PartiesEdward L. DINKINS and Vera E. Dinkins, his wife, and John S. Rainey and Ruth L. Rainey, his wife, Appellants, v. Carl R. JULIAN and Louise Julian, his wife, and B. E. Meadows, d/b/a Meadows & Julian and Julian Construction Company, a Florida corporation; and George F. Brass and William G. Haynie, individually and as co-partners, d/b/a Brass & Haynie, Realtors, Appellees.

J. Russell Hornsby and H. H. Watson, Orlando, for appellants.

Albert P. Schwarz (of Sanders, McEwan, Schwarz & Mims), Orlando, for appellees.

SHANNON, Judge.

Appellants, plaintiffs below, filed their amended complaint against Carl R. Julian and Louise Julian, his wife, and B. E. Meadows, doing business as Meadows & Julian; Julian Construction Company, a Florida corporation; and George F. Brass and William G. Haynie, individually and as co-partners, doing business as Brass & Haynie, Realtors, seeking a restraining order and other equitable relief to prevent the obstruction of a roadway. It was the theory of the plaintiffs that they had a private easement in the roadway involved. The lower court, however, dismissed the complaint and entered final judgment against the plaintiffs.

For the purpose of ascertaining what rights, if any, plaintiffs have, we are setting out below a rough diagram, not made by an engineer, of the property involved:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

In their amended complaint plaintiffs allege the following: that during the summer of 1958 each of the plaintiffs separately purchased a parcel of real estate from the firm of Julian and Meadows, through the defendant realtors, Brass and Haynie; that although the land was conveyed by Carl R. Julian and Louise Julian by warranty deed, the owners had no personal contact with the plaintiffs prior to sale; that each of said purchasers wanted only a 'corner' lot, and they so informed the realtors; that when the plaintiffs inspected the lots they could see a roadway to the north, giving them a corner; that the realtors advised the plaintiffs that this was a county road and that it would be maintained and improved by Orange County; that the plaintiffs acted in reliance and purchased their lots as corner lots; that the plaintiffs built houses on the lots and resided thereon, and that they used the roadway freely. The plaintiffs allege further that the roadway in controversy is now claimed to be owned by the Julian Construction Company, a Florida corporation, and at the time the amended complaint was filed this corporation had commenced building a new subdivision which would extend to the boundaries of the plaintiffs' lots, and which would destroy this roadway and destroy the 'corner' aspect of the plaintiffs' lots. The complaint also sets forth that the Julian Construction Company has as its president Carl R. Julian and as secretary-treasurer Louise Julian, and that these defendants own a majority of the shares of stock of the defendant corporation. It is the theory of the plaintiffs that Carl R. Julian and Louise Julian and B. E. Meadows were chargeable with notice of the representations made by their agents, the realtors, and that the Julian Construction Company is also chargeable with notice of these representations, since the Julians are both directors and majority stockholders therein. Under these allegations the appellants claim an implied easement both in law and in fact in the said roadway.

Essentially, easements are of three types. They are created by express grant, by prescription, or by implication. This is recognized generally in the United States and also in Florida. See Burdine v. Sewell, 1926, 92 Fla. 375, 109 So. 648. We will eliminate easement by express grant and by prescription, as neither is relied on or can be relied on in the present case. So, if the plaintiffs have an easement it is by implication.

Florida has ruled that easements by implication may come about by way of necessity for ingress and egress. See Bradshaw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • American Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 2005
    ...by express grant; by implication; or by prescription."); Jonita, Inc. v. Lewis, 368 So.2d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Dinkins v. Julian, 122 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Manning v. Hall, 110 So.2d 424 (Fla. 2d DCA There are no magical words that one must divine in order to create an express e......
  • Moorings Ass'n, Inc. v. Tortoise Island Communities, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 13, 1984
    ...So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Star Island Associates v. City of St. Petersburg Beach, 433 So.2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dinkins v. Julian, 122 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). The doctrine of implied easement contemplates that when a landowner conveys part of his land, he impliedly grants all a......
  • Hynes v. City of Lakeland
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 4, 1984
    ...opinion, and the cases construing the statutory provision when making its determination. See Star Island Associates; Dinkins v. Julian, 122 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Furthermore, should the trial court rule that appellant is entitled to a "way of necessity," we note that section 704.01(......
  • Star Island Associates v. City of St. Petersburg Beach
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 27, 1983
    ...by the grantor for the benefit of the land conveyed and which were reasonably necessary for use of the land conveyed. Dinkins v. Julian, 122 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Because the evidence in this case shows that the land was submerged even after the parcels initially had been conveyed t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT