Dianne v. Wingate
84 So.3d 427, 2012 WL 1071548, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5011 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a servient estate may use their property in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the dominant estate's use of an easement. Whether an obstruction, such as a speed bump, constitutes an unreasonable interference with an easement for ingress and egress is a question of fact that is ordinarily not appropriate for summary judgment.
Facts:
- On February 1, 1999, Freddie L. Wingate granted an easement to Adrian and Charline Wingate for ingress and egress over property owned by Freddie.
- The written easement agreement provided a 'nonexclusive easement or right of way' but was silent on the issue of obstructions like speed bumps.
- Around October 21, 2009, Freddie and his wife, Gloria Dianne Wingate, installed speed bumps on the paved portion of the easement.
- The Wingates also placed concrete barriers on either side of the speed bumps to prevent vehicles from driving around them.
- Freddie and Gloria Wingate asserted they installed the speed bumps for the safety of small children who lived adjacent to the easement, claiming there was heavy traffic with excessive speeds.
Procedural Posture:
- Adrian and Charline Wingate (Appellees) filed a petition in a Florida trial court seeking a permanent injunction to remove speed bumps placed on an easement by Gloria Dianne and Freddie L. Wingate (Appellants).
- The Appellees moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees and ordered the Appellants to immediately remove the speed bumps.
- Gloria Dianne and Freddie L. Wingate appealed the trial court's summary judgment order to the Florida First District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the placement of speed bumps by the owner of a servient estate on a right-of-way easement for ingress and egress constitute an unreasonable interference as a matter of law, permitting summary judgment in favor of the dominant estate holder?
Opinions:
Majority - Ray, J.
No. The placement of speed bumps by a servient estate owner does not constitute an unreasonable interference with an easement as a matter of law. The owner of land burdened by an easement (the servient estate) retains all rights to the property, except as limited by the easement, and may use the land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the lawful use by the easement holder (the dominant estate). Citing BHB Development, Inc., the court noted that even gates are not per se unreasonable if they do not unreasonably interfere with the right of passage. The essential question is whether the speed bumps substantially or unreasonably interfere with the right of passage, which is a question of fact. To hold that speed bumps are impermissible as a matter of law would wrongly grant the easement holders rights equivalent to absolute ownership. Because the reasonableness of the interference is a factual inquiry, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, and the case must be remanded for a trial to determine the facts.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that a servient landowner retains significant rights to use their property, limited only by the rule of 'unreasonable interference' with the dominant estate's rights. It clarifies that determining what constitutes 'unreasonable' interference is a fact-intensive inquiry, making summary judgment generally inappropriate in such disputes. The ruling establishes that obstructions like gates or speed bumps are not automatically prohibited on an easement; their permissibility depends on a factual balancing of the servient owner's property rights against the dominant owner's right of passage. This precedent guides lower courts to conduct full factual hearings in similar easement obstruction cases rather than deciding them as a matter of law.
