Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami
| Decision Date | 01 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 61-201,61-201 |
| Parties | CLAUGHTON HOTELS, INC., Appellant, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation; Robert Durkin, acting Tax Collector of the City of Miami; Wendell Bailey, Finance Director of the City of Miami; Walter Elwell, Tax Assessor of the City of Miami; Metropolitan Dade County, Florida; John A. Gautier, Tax Assessor of Dade County, Florida; Earnest Overstreet, Tax Collector of Dade County, Florida; and Ray E. Green, Comptroller of the State of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Dean, Adams, Fischer & Gautier, Miami, for appellant.
Darrey A. Davis, County Atty., St. Julien P. Rosemond, Asst. County Atty., and S. R. Sterbenz, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.
Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
Appellant, plaintiff below, brought the original action seeking a determination of its rights under a written easement agreement, covering an 'arcade way' under the south 12 1/2 feet of the Urmey Hotel, located in Miami, Florida. Said agreement was between its predecessor in title, Urmey Hotel Company, and the appellee, City of Miami, wherein the City of Miami was granted a 12 1/2 foot easement, '* * * for the use and benefit of the public for sidewalk purposes.' The agreement, in part, is as follows:
'That, for and in consideration of the covenants herein contained, the party of the first part does hereby grant unto the party of the second part a twelve and a half (12 1/2) foot easement for the use and benefit of the public for sidewalk purposes. Said twelve and a half (12 1/2) foot easement way, located in the City of Miami, County of Dade and State of Florida, is described as follows to-wit:
'The South Twelve and a half (12 1/2) feet of Lots Seventeen (17), Eighteen (18), Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20), and the South Ten (10) feet of Lot Sixteen (16), all in Block 121 North of the City of Miami, according to a plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 'B', Page 41, Public Records of Dade County, Florida, reserving unto the party of the first part the reversion or reversions thereof whenever the use for sidewalk purposes is discontinued or upon the breach of any of the covenants and conditions hereof.
* * *
* * *
'That the present arcade over the sidewalk (the easement way herein provided) complies with this easement agreement and all of its conditions;
* * *
* * *
'That the party of the second part accepts the sidewalk in its present condition and state of repair and covenants and agrees to keep said sidewalk in good condition and repair at all times at its own expense, responsibility and liability;
'That the party of the second part assumes and agrees to pay its prorata share of current taxes and future taxes, as well as its prorata share of existing municipal liens and future municipal liens.'
After hearing the merits, the lower court decreed the appellant was entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt
...effect to the terms as stated without resort to other rules of construction to ascertain their meaning. Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami, 140 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); see also Laboratory Corp. of Am. v. McKown, 829 So.2d 311, 313 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). This rule is premised on the......
-
Consolidated Gas Co. of Florida v. City Gas Co. of Florida
...exclusive easement must be clearly stated); see also Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami, 140 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); and (2) in the absence of an easement specifically and clearly stated to be exclusive, City Gas Company of Flo......
-
Hume v. Royal, 92-1188
...Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami, 140 So.2d 608 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), cert. denied, 146 So.2d 750 (Fla.1962). The Royals' reliance on the Cartish case is misplaced. The easement ......
-
Overstreet v. Indian Creek Village, 70--50
...as such to the Supreme Court of Florida. Affirmed. CARROLL, Judge (concurring specially). I concur. See also, Claughton Hotels, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla.App.1962, 140 So.2d 608. 1 See Article XVI, § 16; Article VIII, § 8 and Article IX, § 1. These references are to the Constitution of 188......