Dianne v. Wingate
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5011
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellants Gloria Dianne Wingate and Freddie L. Wingate appeal a summary judgment ordering removal of speed bumps from a private easement.
- Appellees Adrian and Charline Wingate hold a recorded easement across Appellants’ property for ingress and egress to their residence.
- The easement was created in 1999 and recorded; its language is silent on speed bumps or obstructions.
- Appellees petitioned for removal in May 2010, alleging the speed bumps unreasonably interfere with their easement rights and are dangerous to motorists.
- Appellants admitted placing the speed bumps to improve safety for nearby children and argued the speed bumps do not unreasonably diminish Appellees’ rights.
- The trial court grant summary judgment, concluding the speed bumps substantially interfered with Appellees’ rights as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether speed bumps across a private easement unreasonably interfere with ingress and egress as a matter of law. | Wingate contends the easement allows speed bumps if they do not unreasonably interfere with passage. | Wingates argue the speed bumps do not substantially or unreasonably diminish the easement rights and may be necessary for safety. | Triable issues of fact exist; not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
| What rights the easement granted and whether its silence on speed bumps restricts servient estate owners from placing them. | Wingates claim the easement rights do not include a prohibition on speed bumps. | Wingates argue the easement is constrained by the servient owner's use that cannot unreasonably interfere. | Material facts remain; denial of summary judgment warranted. |
| Whether the trial court correctly assessed reasonableness of interference considering factors like height, spacing, necessity, and impact on traffic. | Wingate asserts factual questions about interference preclude summary judgment. | Wingates contend the court should balance safety against inconvenience; not a pure legal question. | Summary judgment reversed for further proceedings due to triable issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- BHB Development, Inc. v. Bonefish Yacht Club Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 691 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (owner may erect gates if not unreasonably interfering with passage)
- Sandlake Residences, LLC v. Ogilvie, 951 So.2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (interpret easement rights; ascertains dominant rights through contract language)
- Sand Lake Shoppes Family Ltd. P’ship v. Sand Lake Courtyards, L.C., 816 So.2d 143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (easement rights interpreted by intent and contract terms)
- Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (easement rights are not absolute and must be reasonably enjoyed)