23-0536
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.Apr 5, 2024Background
- McNulty Lofts Condominium Association (McNulty) and its members own residential condominiums above floors six through thirteen of a St. Petersburg building; WRH McNulty Garage, LLC (WRH) owns the public parking garage in the same building, on floors one through six.
- The developer recorded a Declaration in 2005 (amended in 2006 and 2014) establishing legal boundaries and property rights, but the parties disputed the precise boundary line on the building's sixth floor.
- A physical gate and elevator lobby were constructed on the sixth floor, historically used solely by condominium residents, which WRH asserts encroaches into its property and deprives it of parking space use.
- In 2022, WRH sued for ejectment, seeking to remove the gate, arguing it was on WRH’s property per recorded boundary instruments.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for WRH, finding no disputed material fact and ordering removal of the gate. McNulty appealed, arguing a material boundary dispute existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument (WRH) | Defendant’s Argument (McNulty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a disputed boundary line | Recorded instruments unambiguously set lines | Inconsistency between Declaration and attached survey | Disputed fact exists; summary judgment reversed |
| Applicability of boundary by acquiescence | Recorded legal instruments prevail | Boundary has been treated as set by gate for 20 years | Not decided; unnecessary due to ambiguity finding |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting defenses | Affidavits do not rebut recorded instruments | Affidavits and history support McNulty’s defenses | Summary judgment improper due to factual dispute |
| Whether internal inconsistency is material | Elevator lobby irrelevant to gate dispute | Inconsistency affects all boundary determinations | Internal inconsistency is material to the boundary |
Key Cases Cited
- Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (standard for summary judgment review)
- G & G In-Between Bridge Club Corp. v. Palm Plaza Assocs., 356 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (summary judgment only if no reasonable jury could find for nonmovant)
- Bogatov v. City of Hallandale Beach, 192 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (inconsistency in evidence creates jury question)
- S & T Anchorage, Inc. v. Lewis, 575 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (conflicting provisions about property rights preclude summary judgment)