The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns lots 1c, 2c, 3c, and 4c and has owned these lots since September 7, 1946. These lots are bounded on the west by Lake Eustis. D owns structures next door to P’s lots that are open to the public. If P's lot lines were extended, the boat-houses and the southward extension of the pier would overlap his lot lines, 9.6 feet in the case of the boathouses and considerably more in the case of the southerly extension of the pier. As a further result, P’s view of the lake from his property is somewhat impaired. The pier and boathouses were originally built in 1921; certain repairs or additions were made in about 1953 or 1954. The city leases the boathouses to various individuals, none of whom were made parties to the present suit. There are no structures on P's land. A conveyance of uplands bounded by navigable waters carries with it riparian rights in the waters; so P, in the present case, has riparian, or to be more correct, littoral, rights in the adjoining waters of Lake Eustis by virtue of ownership of his lots. Riparian rights appurtenant to lands bounded by navigable waters are derived from the common law as modified by statute, and riparian rights are legal rights. In Florida, the right of an upland owner to an unobstructed view of adjoining waters has been recognized as a riparian right. The question in the present case concerns an encroachment by D's pier and boathouses on P's riparian right to an unobstructed view over the waters of Lake Eustis and, to a lesser extent, to his riparian right of access to those waters. P sued D to remove the structures. D answered in part that P acquired the land sight unseen in 1946 and since then has stood by and allowed D to maintain and operate said piers, docks and boathouses and to expend periodically during said period large sums of money for the purpose of keeping them in good repair and in safe condition for public use, and that under these circumstances P, because of his laches, is now estopped from prosecuting these proceedings for any purpose whatsoever. P’s suit was filed on August 27, 1956. The court ruled for P, and D appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.