Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Fraiser
Citations: 545 So. 2d 405; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1416; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3283; 1989 WL 61537Docket: No. BS-136
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 13, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
The court addresses the appeal regarding the dismissal of American Telephone and Telegraph Company’s (AT&T) amended complaint against defendants Addie Weltch Crosby and James Ellis Crosby, Jr., both individually and as personal representatives of the Estate of J. Ellis Crosby. The appeal focuses on two primary issues: 1) whether the nonclaim statute (Section 733.702, Florida Statutes) bars AT&T's complaint against the Crosbys, and 2) whether the complaint adequately states a cause of action against the Estate for injunctive relief related to alleged nuisance. The facts reveal that J. Ellis Crosby and his wife granted AT&T a right-of-way for underground communications on their land in Jacksonville in 1970. After Crosby’s death in 1985, the property title passed to his Estate or to Addie Weltch Crosby as the residuary devisee. The Estate, represented by Addie and James Ellis Crosby, continued to lease the property to Fraiser Tires, which began storing used tires on the site, leading to significant accumulation over the years. AT&T filed a complaint in 1986 against the Crosbys and others, alleging the tire accumulation violated statutes and ordinances and sought injunctive relief. The trial court dismissed the initial complaint due to the expiration of claim filing timelines against the Estate. Subsequent amended complaints were also dismissed, with the court ruling that the actions were solely for injunctive relief concerning property owned by J. Ellis Crosby before his death, and noting that the deadline for filing claims against the Estate had passed on December 6, 1985. The plaintiff's cause of action against James Ellis Crosby, Jr. and Addie Weltch Crosby, as personal representatives of the Estate of J. Ellis Crosby, is barred due to failure to file a timely claim, as required by the non-claim statute. The trial court distinguished this case from Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. v. Clemente, noting that Jacksonville ordinances lack the strict liability provisions found in the Dade County ordinances referenced in that case. The court confirmed that the deadline for filing claims against the Estate expired on December 6, 1985, as supported by Florida Statutes and relevant case law. Additionally, the trial court found that no prospective relief could be granted against the appellees because they no longer owned or controlled the property when the complaint was filed on October 15, 1986. The complaint sought mandatory injunctive relief to remove tires from the property, but since the appellees had terminated their interest in the property prior to the filing, they could not be compelled to act. The current owner and lessee, who are alleged to have placed the tires, are still part of the case. The judgment was affirmed, and it was noted that Florida Statutes Sections 733.702(l)(a) and 733.619 do not provide relief to the appellant as the personal representative lacked the requisite control over the property.