172 So. 3d 519
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- H.A. Buie, Sr. developed two adjacent Columbia County subdivisions: Bluebird Landing and Bluebird Preserve. He conveyed a 24-acre riverfront Common Area in Bluebird Landing to the Landing Association but reserved for himself and assigns “a perpetual, non-exclusive easement and right of ingress and egress over and across all ... Common Areas.”
- Buie later transferred his interests to the Buie Family Trust. The Trust conveyed to Preserve lot owners a perpetual non-exclusive easement and rights “of use and ingress and egress” in the Landing Common Area.
- The Landing Association sued the Trust and Preserve owners, disputing that any right of use in the Common Area had been reserved or conveyed. Old Republic (insurer/title company) defended Preserve owners and ultimately paid $55,000 to quiet their claimed rights.
- Old Republic, as subrogee, filed a cross-claim against the Buie Family Trust for breach of warranty of title, arguing the Trust had conveyed rights it did not own (hollow easements). The trial court granted summary judgment for Old Republic, finding the original reservation only granted ingress/egress, not a right of use.
- The Buie Family Trust appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the reservation ambiguous on its face and requiring extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent regarding the easement’s scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the developer’s reservation included a right of use in the Common Area | Old Republic / Landing Association: reservation did not include a right of use; only ingress/egress existed | Buie/Trust: reservation (and subsequent conveyance) included use rights to the Common Area | Ambiguous on face; cannot resolve on summary judgment — remand for evidence of parties’ intent |
| Whether the conjunctive language (“and”) in the reservation requires recognizing both an easement and an ingress/egress right | Old Republic: the reservation should be read narrowly as ingress/egress despite wording | Buie/Trust: the conjunctive "and" means both an easement (use) and ingress/egress were reserved | Court rejects narrow reading; "and" indicates both elements are to be given effect, contributing to ambiguity |
| Whether failure to state an easement’s specific purpose voids or limits it | Old Republic: unstated purpose negates any use right | Buie/Trust: ambiguity should be construed to allow use rights conveyed to Preserve owners | Court: failure to state purpose makes scope ambiguous but is not fatal; extrinsic evidence is required |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the title-warranty breach claim | Old Republic: yes — title breached because Trust conveyed rights it did not have | Buie/Trust: no — factual ambiguity exists about what rights were reserved/conveyed | Summary judgment improper because material ambiguity exists; remand for factual development |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. Mallett, 7 So.3d 552 (de novo review of contract interpretation)
- Sandlake Residences, LLC v. Ogilvie, 951 So.2d 117 (apply plain meaning rules to easement language)
- One Harbor Fin. Ltd. Co. v. Hynes Properties, LLC, 884 So.2d 1039 (an easement is a right to use another’s land; purpose may be required)
- Walters v. McCall, 450 So.2d 1139 (where easement wording is ambiguous, scope is determined by parties’ intent)
- Am. Quick Sign, Inc. v. Reinhardt, 899 So.2d 461 (failure to state an easement’s purpose is not necessarily fatal)
- Lemon v. Aspen Emerald Lakes Assocs., Ltd., 446 So.2d 177 (extrinsic evidence is admissible to interpret ambiguous written instruments)