Boyd v. Walker

Robert T. BOYD and Patricia A. Boyd, Appellant, v. Alton WALKER and Dorothy L. Walker, et al., Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 2, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-02-02

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 2004

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A landowner who has a common-law way of necessity under section 704.01(1) is ineligible for a statutory way of necessity under section 704.01(2).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 885 So. 2d 423 - Cirelli v. Ent

Relies on 284 So. 2d 493 - Reyes v. Perez · 732 So. 2d 369 - Hancock v. Tipton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-02-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1R. Mitchell Prugh of Middleton & Prugh, P.A., Melrose, for Appellant.

¶2John F. Sproull, Palatka, for Appellee.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Robert and Patricia Boyd (Boyd) appeal an amended final judgment granting Alton Walker, et al. (the Walkers) a statutory way of necessity over Boyd's real property.

¶5We reverse because the Walkers failed to carry their burden at trial to show that they do not have a common-law way of necessity available to them. See Hancock v. Tipton,732 So.2d 369, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (declaring that section 704.01(1) and (2), Florida Statutes must be read sequentially). A landowner who has a common-law way of necessity under section 704.01(1) is ineligible for a statutory way of necessity under section 704.01(2). See Reyes v. Perez,284 So.2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

¶6REVERSED.

¶7COBB, PETERSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.