Spear v. Martin
| Citation | 330 So.2d 543 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--2002,75--2002 |
| Parties | Steven A. SPEAR and Josephine Spear, his wife, Appellants, v. Mark J. MARTIN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Joel L. Kirschbaum, of Berryhill, Avery, Schwenke, Williams & Scott, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.
Douglas C. Fulton, of Wearn & Fulton, West Palm Beach, for appellees, Martin and Silc.
This is an appeal from an interlocutory order partially granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Plaintiffs sued defendants in a three count complaint, based on the allegation that defendants constructed and used a driveway upon plaintiffs' land. Count I was an action to recover possession of real property unlawfully detained by defendants. The second count alleged that defendants had trespassed on the plaintiffs' land and used it without any right or authority. Count III alleged that defendants had taken possession of the plaintiffs' land and held it without lawful right or title 'against the lawful demands for possession by the plaintiffs.'
Plaintiffs demanded damages, exemplary damages and possession of the land.
The defendants denied the allegations and filed affirmative defenses. They affirmatively alleged they had acquired an easement by prescription; that they had acquired the property by adverse possession; and that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the Statute of Limitations and laches. The defendants prayed that title to the property be quieted in their names.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied.
Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered the appealed order finding for plaintiffs on all accounts except for the issue of intent and damages made by plaintiffs' complaint.
We have examined the record and agree that the defendants' affirmative defense of adverse possession was correctly laid to rest, based on defendants' answers to interrogatories. Thus, the appealed order is affirmed to this extent. However, we feel upon further examination that there clearly remain disputed questions of fact which ban summary disposition as to the other issues drawn by the pleadings. F.R.C.P. 1.510. Simply because both sides move for summary judgment does not mean the court is required to grant one of the motions. Central investments, Inc. v. Old Southern Golf Utility Corp., 197 So.2d 17 (4th DCA Fla.1967). The party moving for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Daniel Laurent, Inc. v. Coral Television Corp., RMR-AD
...Davis, 375 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Oskierko, 334 So.2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Spear v. Martin, 330 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Francis v. General Motors Corp., 287 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 293 So.2d 716 (Fla.1974); Lovelace v. S......
-
Kobetitsch v. American Mfrs.' Mut. Ins. Co., 80-275
...to summary judgment in his favor does not result in an affirmance of the summary judgment entered against him. See, Spear v. Martin, 330 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Mullen v. Mullen, 184 So.2d 917, 919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). This is so because, unlike the factual situation in Ball (as well ......
-
Highlands Ins. Co. v. Lucci, 81-1762
...the non-movant. First Independent Bank, N.A. v. Stottlemyer & Shoemaker Lumber Co., 384 So.2d 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Spear v. Martin, 330 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); accord Proprietors Insurance Co. v. Siegel, 410 So.2d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Davi......
-
Hyde Shipping Corp. v. Concreto Asfaltico Nacional, S.A.
...summary final judgment is appropriate only where each affirmative defense has been conclusively refuted on the record. Spear v. Martin, 330 So.2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)." Pandol Bros., Inc. v. NCNB Nat'l Bank, 450 So.2d 592, 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); see also International Commercial Proper......