Avery Development Corp. v. Village by the Sea Condominium Apts., Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1905,89-1905 |
| Citation | 567 So.2d 447 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2158 AVERY DEVELOPMENT CORP., Appellant, v. VILLAGE by the SEA CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, INC., Appellee. |
John R. Hargrove and Lillian W. Conrad of Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weihe & Gent, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Joseph L. DeGance, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
This is an appeal of the trial court's final order that granted appellee parking rights over appellant's property.
A developer built appellee Village by the Sea Condominium Apartments, Inc. The site plans and plat maps show parking spaces but the word "easement" does not appear anywhere on the documents. However, the Declaration of Condominium (Declaration) filed in December of 1969 does mention an easement for ingress and egress (access easement) over the land that separates the condominium property from State Road A-1-A, 1 but does not contain any language about a parking easement. Since 1969 the condominium residents have parked on the access easement in the spaces shown on the plans and maps.
In 1983, the developer filed for bankruptcy. A 1985 bankruptcy court final order released, discharged and exonerated the condominium property from any and all burdens imposed by the various declarations except for the easements created under the Declaration. 2 In 1987, appellant Avery Development Corporation purchased the condominium property and later filed suit to determine appellee's right to park on the access easement. In 1989, the bankruptcy court corrected and clarified its earlier final order. The trial court found that the 1985 final bankruptcy court order created a parking easement.
We reverse. 20 Fla.Jur. Easements § 11 (1980). The owner/developer of the property did not grant appellee a parking easement. The language of the Declaration which created the access easement is clear:
A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress....
As stated in Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984):
When language of a deed is clear and certain in meaning, and the grantor's intention is reflected by the language employed, there is no room for judicial construction of the language nor interpretation of the words used--if there is no ambiguity in the wording then the intention of the grantor must be ascertained therefrom.
The intent of the developer to only grant an access easement is equally clear. As the grantor of the access easement, the developer knew that the easement would be used for parking, and in fact, had added the parking spaces on the plans and maps in order to comply with building regulations. Yet the developer did not choose to grant an easement for parking.
Appellee as owner of the access easement cannot increase the burden on appellant's property to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time the access easement was granted. Id. (citing Crutchfield v. F.A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So.2d 328, 330 (Fla.1954). Appellant as the owner of the property can use the property including the access easement in any manner so long as its use does not interfere with appellee's rights of ingress and egress. Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So.2d 568, 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The trial court erred in finding that appellant had the burden to prove that the parking interfered with appellant's right of ingress and egress. Just the opposite, appellee had the burden and could not prove that parking on the access easement did not increase the burden on the servient estate or interfere with appellant's right of ingress and egress.
We recognize that a trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that such findings are clearly erroneous or totally without substantial evidentiary support. Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So.2d 507, 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); See also In re Estate of Donner, 364 So.2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Holland v. Gross, 89 So.2d 255 (Fla.1956). However, the reviewing court is not bound by the trial court's legal conclusions where those conclusions conflict with established law. Oceanic, 402 So.2d at 511. We conclude the trial judge erroneously found that the bankruptcy court's final order created an easement for parking. The order did not terminate the access easement and reimpose it, nor did the order create a parking easement. The order left the property subject to the access easement created by the developer and described in the Declaration. The trial judge noted that the bankruptcy court's 1989 corrected final order expressed the bankruptcy judge's intent to preserve the access easement as it existed prior to the bankruptcy, 3 nevertheless, the trial judge concluded, "The use of the land as it existed prior to the Final Order included parking in conjunction with ingress and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt
...may not be increased beyond that reasonably contemplated at the time of its creation."); Avery Dev. Corp. v. Village by the Sea Condo. Apartments, Inc., 567 So.2d 447, 448-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ("[The] owner of the access easement cannot increase the burden on ... [a servient tenement] to ......
-
Gilman v. Blocks
...Chancy v. Chancy Lake Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., --- So.3d ----, ----, 2010 WL 2172698 (Ala.Civ.App.2010); Avery Dev. v. Village by the Sea Condo., 567 So.2d 447, 448 (Fla.Dist.App.1990) (determining that declaration filed of record created access easement). On the other hand, a license is a p......
-
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Com'n v. Dockery, 95-1769
...established principles of law. In re Estate of Donner, 364 So.2d 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Avery Development Corp. v. Village by the Sea Condominium Apts, Inc., 567 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Moreover, where the trial court has misconceived the legal effect of the facts, the appellate cou......
-
Kwolek v. Swickard
...and nothing more than that, has also been recognized in Florida, New York, and Ohio. See Avery Dev. Corp. v. Village by the Sea Condo. Apartments, Inc., 567 So.2d 447, 448–49 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990) (“The right to park could not be created by its omission from an easement which granted the r......
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.10 • JUDICIAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECLARATION
...1993) (extrinsic evidence admissible to resolve ambiguities, not create them); Avery Dev. Corp. v. Village by the Sea Condo. Apts., Inc., 567 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Richardson v. Deerwood Club, Inc., 589 So.2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (unambiguous grant of easement given plain meanin......
-
Chapter 10 - § 10.1 • GENERAL PRINCIPLES
...1993) (extrinsic evidence admissible to resolve ambiguities, not create them); Avery Dev. Corp. v. Vill. by the Sea Condo. Apts., Inc., 567 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Richardson v. Deerwood Club, Inc., 589 So.2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (unambiguous grant of easement given plain meaning)......
-
Chapter 12 - § 12.4 • THE DECLARATION
...evidence may be admitted to resolve ambiguities but not to create them); Avery Dev. Corp. v. Vill. by the Sea Condo. Apts., Inc., 567 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Richardson v. Deerwood Club, Inc., 589 So.2d 937 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also Aghili v. Banks, 63 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. App.—Houst......
-
The appellate decision-making process.
...Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 1977); Avery Dev. Corp. v. Village by the Sea Condo. Apartments, Inc., 567 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. (15) D'Angelo v. Fitzmaurice, 863 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2003). (16) G. Somerville, Standards of Appellate Review, 15 LITIGATION 23 ......