Jabour v. Toppino, 73--740
Decision Date | 09 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 73--740,73--740 |
Parties | Maurice JABOUR and Frances Jabour, his wife, Appellants, v. Orsolina TOPPINO, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Feldman & Eden, Key West, for appellants.
Neblett & Sauer, Key West. Joseph C. Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Appellants, defendants in the trial court, seek review of a final judgment declaring that the defendants no longer have any rights on the plaintiff's land and enjoining them from any use thereon.
Following a nonjury trial, the court requested memoranda of law and oral argument from counsel and thereafter rendered its decision. We adopt, the views expressed in the written opinion of Judge Lester, the able Circuit Judge for Monroe County, which reads as follows:
'FINAL JUDGMENT
'The plaintiff and defendants are now adjoining landowners due to purchases made by defendants from plaintiff of certain parcels in Square 11, City of Key West.
prior aggressive attempts to extend and improve the ramp adjacent to said Parcel D. It is admitted that defendants have access to said Parcel F over other lands which they own, however, the northerly entrance to Parcel F over plaintiff's land made it more convenient to defendants to fully utilize the building located on Parcel F for a moving and storage warehouse.
'The agreement recognizes that there were various traffic, ingress, egress and parking problems created by the sales of land by plaintiff to defendants. The stated purpose of the instrment is to clearly delineate the various permitted uses of plaintiff's land by the defendants and place conditions and limitations upon these uses.
'The determinative parts of the agreement are as follows:
use of plaintiff's waterfront property.
'The complaint in this case alleges that the relations between plaintiff and defendants are and have been adverse because of defendants' failure to pay on notes and mortgages owed plaintiff, and the defendants' aggressive acts of encroachment upon plaintiff's land and the abuse by defendants of the provisions of the agreement by interference with the use of plaintiff's land by plaintiff's tenants.
'These violations prompted the plaintiff, through her attorneys, in a letter dated May 4, 1972, to revoke the rights granted the defendants under the October 23, 1963 agreement and to demand the removal of the unauthorized ramps.
'Plaintiff alleges that the defendants continue to use the aforesaid revoked permissive rights, continue to interfere with plaintiff's tenants and have made no attempt to remove the unauthorized construction from plaintiff's land, and further that these actions constitute a continuing trespass and seriously interfere with plaintiff's rightful use of her property.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hynes v. City of Lakeland
...agreement that affect in order to carry out the parties' intent. Kingdon v. Walker, 156 So.2d 208 (Fla.2d DCA 1963); Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). In the case sub judice, it is the October 1975 Agreement and companion Lease (which we have noted incorporated by referen......
-
Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G & J Investments Corp., Inc., 86-1714
...until such time as we sold it"; however, the license expressly limited use to the nursing home patients. See Jabour v. Tobbino, 293 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (quoting Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375, 390, 109 So. 648, 654 (1926)) (" 'Where the parties have fully manifested an intenti......
-
Brevard County v. Blasky
...can revoke permissive rights under certain circumstances, the agreement can typically be no more than a license. See Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123, 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Because the 1954 agreement fits this definition, it is a The more important subset of this discussion concerns wheth......
-
Consolidated Gas Co. of Florida v. City Gas Co. of Florida
...225 Cal.App. 152, 37 Cal.Rptr. 153 (1964) (the grant of an 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 ......
-
Real property actions
...of the Courts: Where the parties have clearly stated their intentions the court must give effect to those intentions. Jabour v. Toppino , 293 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). A person granting an easement may restrict the easement in any way he wishes, and the easement holder cannot expan......
-
CHAPTER 2 ACQUIRING EXPRESS RIGHTS-OF-WAY: DRAFTING CONSIDERATIONS
...Colo. 167, 220 P.2d 546 (1950). [83] First National Bank of Denver v. Allard, 182 Colo. 297 (1973), 513 P.2d 445. [84] Jabour v. Toppino, 293 So.2d 123, 126 (Fla. App. 1974). [85] Scott v. Brown, 71 Colo. 275, 206 P. 572 (1922). [86] McGuire v. Crockett, 112 Colo. 552, 151 P.2d 326 (1944); ......