230 EAST V. WOLKOW
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, A.D. 2004 230 EAST 7th STREET ASSOCIATES, etc., Appellant, vs. THE WOLKOW COMPANY, Appellee. ** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D03-2563 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 02-553 ** Opinion filed May 19, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Richard Payne, Judge. Horan, Horan & Wallace and Edward Horan, for appellant. Morgan & Hendrick and James Hendrick and Karen K. Cabanas, for appellee. Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and WELLS and SHEPHERD, JJ. PER CURIAM. The appellant bases its claim to a vested right to intrude into the appellee s easement on alleged adverse possession. Because we find, as a matter of law, that the record is insufficient to establish such a right, see Mumaw v. Roberson, 60 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 1952); Bentz v. McDaniel, ___ So. 2d ___ (Fla. 5th DCA Case no. 5D03-1898, opinion filed, May 7, 2004); Enos v. Casey Mountain, Inc., 532 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), review denied, 542 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1989); Kitzinger v. Gulf Power Co., 432 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and that any such right, even if it existed, was abandoned by the passage of more than two decades since it was last exercised, see Kitzinger, 432 So. 2d at 188, we approve the judgment below in favor of the appellee easement holder. See also Hale v. Miracle Enters. Corp., 517 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
