Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 97-0809,97-3405,s. 97-0809 |
| Citation | 706 So.2d 383 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D500 CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ignacio E. Sanchez, Gregory J. Newcomm and Yolanda Gonzalez of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Miami, for appellant.
Andrew E. Grigsby and Rafael Sanchez-Aballi of Hinshaw & Culbertson, Miami, for appellee.
Citgo Petroleum Corporation ("Citgo"), appeals a final judgment quieting title to certain property in favor of Florida East Coast Railway Company ("FEC"). We reverse, as we find that Citgo was granted an express easement to construct and maintain a pipeline on the subject property by FEC's predecessor in title, the Florida Department of Transportation ("the DOT"), and that Citgo's failure to record this easement does not render it ineffectual against FEC since FEC was on inquiry notice of its existence.
The events that gave rise to this dispute extend back almost twenty years, and involve the expansion of the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and the resulting relocation of various utilities.
Prior to the airport's expansion in the early 1980's, Citgo had a licensing agreement with FEC under which Citgo had the "right and privilege" of operating a pipeline under FEC's main track, across FEC's railroad right-of-way. When Broward County and the DOT began the eastward expansion of the airport, both FEC's right-of-way and Citgo's pipeline had to be relocated. On November 10, 1983, Citgo reached an agreement with the DOT to relocate the pipeline. The 1983 Agreement acknowledges that Citgo owns various property rights along the original pipeline, and provides for the transfer of those property rights to the DOT in exchange for allowing Citgo to relocate and operate the pipeline on other property that had been acquired by the DOT. The Agreement also provides,
CITGO ... will at all times, both during and after construction, have free and complete access to the existing and new jet fuel line for the purposes of monitoring, maintenance, repair, and upkeep of said line.
The following month, Citgo contacted FEC, informing it that plans were underway to relocate the pipeline across the proposed 1 relocation of FEC's right-of-way, and requesting the appropriate engineering specifications. Along with the requested specifications, FEC sent Citgo an application for a new licensing agreement, which Citgo never executed. In the following months, Citgo and FEC continued to correspond concerning the specifications for the new pipeline. During these communications, FEC made it known that until it reached an agreement with Broward County to relocate its right-of-way, it could not consider granting Citgo a utility crossing permit.
On March 12, 1985, FEC finally reached an agreement with Broward County to relocate the railroad track. The 1985 Agreement provided that FEC would convey to Broward County its existing right-of-way in exchange for a replacement right-of-way further to the east. The parcels of land comprising the new right-of-way property had been acquired by either the DOT or Broward County, were subsequently transferred entirely to Broward County, and then conveyed from Broward County to FEC by quitclaim deed. FEC promptly recorded this conveyance. At that time, Citgo had no easements on record relating to any portion of this property.
The 1985 FEC-Broward County Agreement provided that the new right-of-way property was to be conveyed to FEC "free and clear of all encumbrances"; however, the Agreement required FEC to grant easements, licenses, and permits to various utility companies and other entities to allow storm sewers, fuel lines, and other appurtenances to cross the new right-of-way. The Agreement includes a compilation of "all such easements, licenses, or permits currently known to the parties to be required." While the list includes over twenty roads, pipelines, and drainage crossings, it makes no mention of the relocated Citgo pipeline. In any event, Noel Pfeiffer, the Broward County attorney who prepared the 1985 FEC Agreement, testified that throughout the negotiations between the County and FEC, he had been unaware of the 1983 Citgo-DOT Agreement.
A month after FEC reached its relocation agreement with Broward County, FEC sent Citgo another application for a licensing agreement. Once again, Citgo did not execute the contract. Right around that time, between March and June of 1985, Citgo completed the new pipeline. It is conspicuously marked with protruding vents. FEC's subsequently-constructed railroad track was built between two of the vents.
On July 29, 1994, FEC commenced this action to quiet title. Citgo answered that it had an express easement by virtue of its 1983 Agreement with the DOT. On January 29, 1996, once these proceedings were well under way, Citgo recorded a Notice of Easement. The Final Judgment concludes that FEC was not on inquiry notice of any "potential unrecorded easement," and that, in any event, Citgo was never granted an easement. The trial court also declared Citgo's recently-filed Notice of Easement null and void. This appeal followed.
Citgo's express easement
Our de novo interpretation of the 1983 Agreement between Citgo and the DOT--wherein the DOT allowed Citgo to relocate its pipeline onto property then owned by the DOT--convinces us that the DOT thereby granted Citgo an express easement to operate and maintain the relocated pipeline.
An easement is "the right in one other than the owner of the land to use land for some particular purpose or purposes." Dean v. MOD Properties, Ltd., 528 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). In ascertaining whether the 1983 Agreement grants Citgo an easement, the applicable rule is that
no particular form and language are necessary to create an easement; rather, any words clearly showing the intention of the parties to create a servitude on a sufficiently identifiable estate is sufficient.
Hynes v. City of Lakeland, 451 So.2d 505, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (citations omitted); see also 20 Fla.Jur.2d Easements § 14 ().
In Florida Power &...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt
...showing the intention of the parties to create an easement on a sufficiently identifiable estate. Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Florida E. Coast Ry. Co., 706 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Hynes v. City of Lakeland, 451 So.2d 505, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)). Documents that convey easements s......
-
Duresa v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
...an unrecorded easement into evidence against a subsequent purchaser of the property at issue. In Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 706 So. 2d 383 (Fla. App. 1998.), in imputing knowledge of an unrecorded easement to a subsequent purchaser of property (the defendant) over ......
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, Inc.
...95 So.2d 506, 509 (Fla.1957)); Rafkind v. Beer, 426 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 706 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing Chatlos). Implied actual notice is based upon the that a person has no right to shut his eyes or e......
-
Starlines Intern. v. Union Planters Bank
...DCA 1983)(quoting Sickler v. Melbourne State Bank, 118 Fla. 468, 159 So. 678, 679 (1935)), see also Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 706 So.2d 383, 386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citing In this case, Starlines did have information from Note 2 that there may be pre-existing debt sec......