Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1978
• Docket Number: No. 77-2426,77-2426
• Citation: Jennings v. Perrine Fish Market, Inc., 360 So.2d 434 (Fla. App. 1978)
• Parties: Arlene D. JENNINGS and Jennings Construction Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. PERRINE FISH MARKET, INC., a Florida Corporation, Claude E. Shull and Mildred S. Shull, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 434

360 So.2d 434

Arlene D. JENNINGS and Jennings Construction Corporation, a Florida Corporation, Appellants, v. PERRINE FISH MARKET, INC., a Florida Corporation, Claude E. Shull and Mildred S. Shull, Appellees.

No. 77-2426.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 13, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1978.

Bartel & Shuford and Judy D. Shapiro, Miami, for appellants.

Scott T. Eber, Miami, for appellees.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., BARKDULL, J., and PARKER, J. GWYNN (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff property owners in this private nuisance action appeal an order denying their motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the customers of the defendants, adjoining property owners, from parking their cars in plaintiffs' parking lot.

Defendants, Perrine Fish Market, Inc. and the owner/operators Claude and Mildred Shull own property adjacent to that of the plaintiffs, Arlene Jennings and Jennings Construction Corp., the prime tenant in the Jennings office building. In front of plaintiffs' building is a parking lot, whereas defendants have no parking facilities on their property but do provide such facilities for their customers across the street. Nevertheless, a large number of defendants' customers use plaintiffs' parking lot for convenience, often creating a shortage of parking spaces for plaintiffs' customers and tenants. Alleging a loss of established tenants and business as a result, the plaintiffs filed the instant complaint for damages and a permanent and temporary injunction seeking to enjoin the above interference of the use of their property. After a hearing, the chancellor denied their motion for a preliminary injunction. We affirm.

In view of the particular facts...