LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

FINAL ORDER

“The Department's contention that the road easement constitutes a separate parcel of property between Lots 16 and 17 and the MWH was rejected by the ALJ. Instead, the AU concluded that, due to the absence of any proof in this case to the contrary, the Lays own to the centerline of the 60‑foot road easement shown on the boundary survey as a matter of established real property law. See, e.g., Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435, 436 (Fla. 1915); Joseph v. Duran, 436 So.2d 316, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Feig v. Graves, 100 So.2d 192, 196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). 1 agree with the ALJ's application of this settled rule of real property law to the facts of this case.

In his Recommended Order, the AU asserted that there was no evidence presented at the DOM final hearing that the road easement in question was ever officially dedicated to the public and/or that dedication of the road easement was ever officially accepted by Lee County. The AU also asserted that no evidence was presented at the final hearing that the developer of the Cayo Costa Subdivision retained any reversionary interest in the road easement. Neither of these assertions of the AU was challenged by the Department in its Exceptions.”