CAYO COSTA SUBDIVISION BEACH

LEE COUNTY PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 25 (1912)

PRIVATE RIPARIAN GULF-FRONT SUBDIVISION

LEE COUNTY CORRUPTION

LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

FINAL ORDER

LAY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

“Under Florida law, "in the absence of a contrary showing," conveyance of Lots 16 and 17 included title to the centerline of the road east of the Lays' property, subject to the easement dedicated to Lee County by platting of the Cayo Costa Subdivision in the early 1910's; and, since the County either did not accept or has abandoned the road easement, the Lays own to the centerline of the road easement free and clear of any easement. See Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 489, 70 So. 435, 436 (1915); Calvert v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). DEP did not prove that MHW is to the west of the centerline of the platted road easement at the point of the Lays' proposed dock.

20. As suggested by Smith v. Horn, it was possible for the conveyance of Lots 16 and 17 from the owner who platted the Cayo Costa Subdivision to have excluded title to the road easement (or to have retained a reversionary interest). If so, the Lays would not own to the centerline of the road easement. See Servando Bldg. Co. v. Zimmerman, 91 So. 2d 289, 291-292 (Fla. 1956); Peninsula Point, Inc. v. South Georgia Dairy Co‑op, Inc., 251 So. 2d 690, 692-693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). But DEP did not prove that the deeds to Lots 16 and 17 included such a provision. For that reason, DEP did not prove that the Lays do not own to the centerline of the platted road easement and did not prove any misrepresentations in the Lays' applications for consent of use.”

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.”

EMINENT DOMAIN FRAUD

O.R. 569/875 EMINENT DOMAIN FRAUD SCHEME