Narrative Opinion Summary
The trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees concerning an easement for beach access and denying appellees’ motion for attorney’s fees has been appealed. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to ambiguities in the easement's language, indicating that factual issues exist regarding whether the easement is exclusive and whether the appellees’ construction on the dominant tenement interfered unreasonably with the appellant’s right-of-way interests. The court has ordered a remand for a hearing to clarify the parties' intent regarding the exclusivity of the easement at the time of its creation, followed by a trial to assess any unreasonable interference and potential damages. Additionally, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney’s fees to the appellees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes. The decision is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. Judges Stevenson and Cohn concur.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney’s Fees Under Section 57.105, Florida Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the denial of attorney’s fees to the appellees, affirming the trial court's decision.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney’s fees to the appellees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes.
Easements and Exclusivitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court remanded the case to determine the parties' intent regarding the exclusivity of the easement at the time of its creation.
Reasoning: The court has ordered a remand for a hearing to clarify the parties' intent regarding the exclusivity of the easement at the time of its creation.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that summary judgment was inappropriate due to unresolved ambiguities in the easement's language, requiring further factual inquiry.
Reasoning: The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to ambiguities in the easement's language, indicating that factual issues exist regarding whether the easement is exclusive and whether the appellees’ construction on the dominant tenement interfered unreasonably with the appellant’s right-of-way interests.
Unreasonable Interference with Easementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial will assess whether the appellees' construction unreasonably interfered with the appellant’s easement rights.
Reasoning: The court has ordered a remand for a hearing to clarify the parties' intent regarding the exclusivity of the easement at the time of its creation, followed by a trial to assess any unreasonable interference and potential damages.