WHITE & CHABINAK V. BUCKWALTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed October 31, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D06-3157 Lower Tribunal No. CAP 02-330 ________________ Robert P. White and Carol Chabinak, Appellants, vs. David Buckwalter and Ethyl Buckwalter and Henry Finck, Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Luis M. Garcia, Judge. Andrew M. Tobin (Tavernier), for appellants. Vernis & Bowling and Scott C. Black (Islamorada); Greenman & Manz and Franklin D. Greenman, for appellees. Before COPE and WELLS, JJ., and FLETCHER, Senior Judge. WELLS, J. Affirmed. See Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Forty-Five Twenty-Five, Inc., 114 So. 2d 357, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (stating that it is universally held that where a structure serves a useful and beneficial purpose, it does not give rise to a cause of action . . . even though it causes injury to another by cutting off light and air and interfer[es] with the view that would otherwise be available over adjoining land in its natural state, regardless of the fact that the structure may have been erected partly for spite ); see also Messett v. Cohen, 741 So. 2d 619, 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (finding that a claim of obstructed view does not constitute a legally recognizable interest ); Calusa Golf, Inc. v. Carlson, 464 So. 2d 1271, 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finding that, even though a spiteful purpose may have partially motivated the construction of the fence, an injunction preventing the construction was inappropriate where the fence would serve a useful purpose by protecting the [property] from trespass and vandalism ). 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.
