Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park
| Decision Date | 22 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D02-1307.,2D02-1307. |
| Citation | 854 So.2d 729 |
| Parties | Henry H. BLANTON, as Trustee for Caroline Investments, Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Appellant, v. CITY OF PINELLAS PARK, Florida; Yale Mosk & Co.; and Yale Mosk, an individual, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven L. Brannock and Sarah C. Weinzierl of Holland & Knight LLP, Tampa, for Appellant.
Edward D. Foreman of Law Offices of Edward D. Foreman, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee City of Pinellas Park, Florida.
James A. Helinger, Jr., of James A. Helinger, Jr., P.A., Clearwater, and Amy S. Farrior and Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., of Schropp, Buell & Elligett, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees Yale Mosk & Co. and Yale Mosk, individually.
Henry H. Blanton, in his capacity as trustee of a profit-sharing plan, timely appeals a final order dismissing his second amended complaint with prejudice. We affirm but write in order to certify a question of great public importance.
On December 28, 1910, Pinellas Groves, Inc., conveyed a ten-acre parcel to Blanton's predecessor in title. The sale landlocked the property. After the conveyance, the only reasonable and practical access to the landlocked property was through Pinellas Groves' land. Blanton purchased the landlocked ten acres in 1975.1
In 1997, Blanton filed suit against the then-current owners of Pinellas Groves' land, Yale Mosk and Co. ("Mosk"), against Yale Mosk individually, and against the City of Pinellas Park to force them to allow access to his land. Blanton based his right to access his property through Mosk's property on two theories.
Under one theory, Blanton claimed entitlement to access his property through Mosk's property as a third-party beneficiary to an annexation agreement between the City and Mosk, and a subsequent replat requested by Mosk and approved by the City. Both the annexation agreement and the replat reserved an access easement for City purposes on Mosk's property.
Under the other theory, Blanton claimed entitlement to a statutory way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01(2), Florida Statutes (1997), so long as he paid a reasonable fee for his use of Mosk's property. The complaint alleged that Blanton had to cross Mosk's property to access the nearest practicable road and that the replat had effectively eliminated the historical means of access from his property to the public road.2 It also alleged that Mosk had conveyed interests to certain lots surrounding the property, and in the warranty deeds reflecting those conveyances, Mosk had prohibited the grantees from allowing ingress or egress to Blanton's property without first obtaining the consent of Yale Mosk or his heirs. Blanton alleged that he had attempted to negotiate access with Mosk, but Mosk had demanded in excess of 1.15 million dollars for access over the strip of land which, in 1997, had an assessed value, for property tax purposes, of $18,100.
The trial court found that the annexation agreement and the subsequent replat did not give Blanton third-p...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cirelli v. Ent
...reverse the judgments under review and remand for further proceedings. We express conflict with the decision in Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park, 854 So.2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), review granted, 870 So.2d 820 (Fla.2004).13 We also certify to the Florida Supreme Court, as a matter of great ......
- Sommerville v. Allstate Ins. Co.
-
Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park
...So.2d 1167 (Fla.1999), the Second District Court of Appeal answered this question in the affirmative. See Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park, 854 So.2d 729, 731 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). However, recognizing that H & F Land concerned a common law way of necessity and not the statutory right, the Se......
- Germany v. Darby