Florida Power & Light Co. v. Rader, 73--837

Decision Date24 January 1975
Docket NumberNo. 73--837,73--837
Citation306 So.2d 565
PartiesFLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant, v. Alan S. RADER, Trustee, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Norman A. Coll and Matthew M. Childs of McCarthy, Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for appellant.

R. Regis Reasbeck of Reasbeck & Fegers, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

The final judgment in this action for inverse condemnation required the defendant (appellant herein) to commence condemnation proceedings to acquire an easement over that portion of the plaintiff-appellee's property upon which defendant had constructed and was maintaining electric power transmission lines and related poles, guys and anchors. We reverse.

Appellant's original entry upon the property in 1944, and its subsequent construction, operation and maintenance of its electric power transmission lines, were all pursuant to a valid but unrecorded written easement from the then owner of the property (a predecessor in title to appellee), executed with the formalities required for conveying property and granting to appellant 'the right to set out and maintain poles and anchors for an electric transmission and distribution line, and the necessary appurtenances for such lines'.

The trial court concluded, apparently on the basis of Section 695.01(1), F.S., that appellant's failure to record the easement deprived appellee, who purchased the property in 1959, of either actual or constructive notice of the easement, and therefore the easement was ineffectual as against appellee. Such conclusion is contrary to appellee's testimony to the effect that prior to purchasing the property he had made a visual inspection of it and had seen the power lines and poles in question. Actual, open and obvious possession is constructive notice to all the world of whatever right the occupant has in the land, and puts upon inquiry those acquiring any title to or lien upon the land so occupied to ascertain the nature of the rights the occupant has in the premises. Blackburn v. Venice Inlet Co., Fla.1948, 38 So.2d 43; Marion Mortgage Co. v. Grennan, 1932, 106 Fla. 913, 143 So. 761, 87 A.L.R. 1492; Tate v. Pensacola Gulf, Land & Development Co., 1896, 37 Fla. 439, 20 So. 542.

It is true that at the time appellee inspected the premises and observed the presence of the electric power transmission lines he was uncertain as to the boundary line of the property and, therefore, did not then know that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Duresa v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 30, 2004
    ...placed the defendant landowner on notice of the plaintiff's easement. Citgo, 706 So. 2d at 386. Similarly, in Florida Power & Light Co. v. Rader, 306 So. 2d 565 (Fla. App.1975), the defendant power company filed condemnation proceedings to acquire an easement over the plaintiff's property w......
  • McDonald v. McGowan
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 1981
    ...948 (Fla.1977). Only rarely is the record so clear that a judgment can be directed as a matter of law. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Rader, 306 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); O'Neal v. Coral Gables, 294 So.2d 102 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 303 So.2d 640 (Fla.1974). Where as in this case......
  • VLX Properties, Inc. v. Southern States Utilities, Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 7, 1997
    ...... title to land so occupied to ascertain the nature of the rights the occupant has in the premises." Florida Power & Light Co. v. Rader, 306 So.2d 565, 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). VLX failed to make such inquiry. The trial court, after hearing the testimony and inspecting the property, found......
  • Procacci v. Zacco
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1975
    ...and no evidence of any permanent structure on the described strip. See Downing v. Bird, 100 So.2d 57 (Fla.1958); Fla. Power and Light co. v. Rader, 306 So.2d 565 (4thDCA Fla.1975); Orange Blossom Hills, Inc. v. Kearsley, 299 So.2d 75 (1stDCA Fla.1974); Reyes v. Perez, 284 So.2d 493 (4thDCA ......
  • 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