Case ID: so2d_202/html/0606-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ANDREWS, Judge. CROSS, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. C. ALEXANDER and Wanda G. Alexander, his wife, Appellants, v. Champion WARING, as Executor of the Estate of Louise C. Holmes, Deceased, and Champion Waring, Individually, Appellees.
    No. 582.
    District Co-urt of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.
    Sept. 26, 1967.
    David M. Porter, Titusville, for appellants.
    W. J. Vaughn, Melbourne, for appellees.
   ANDREWS, Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, W. C. Alexander and Wanda G. Alexander, his wife, from a final judgment for the defendant, Champion Waring, individually, and as executor of the Estate of Louise C. Holmes, deceased.

The plaintiffs brought an action in ejectment. Upon waiver of jury, the matter proceeded to final hearing in what amounted to a boundary dispute. Each party presented testimony of surveyors who were recognized as expert witnesses. The only dispute between the surveyors was as to the beginning point of the description on which each party relied.

It appears that if the beginning point relied upon by defendants’ surveyor is used, the description contained in the deed by which defendants acquired their property closes and defines the property. On the other hand, if the point relied upon by plaintiffs’ surveyor is used, it becomes necessary to change one distance and an angle of the calls in order for the description in their deed to close.

The trial court, upon consideration of these facts and examination of the surveys submitted by each party, determined that the boundary line between the lands of the parties was as claimed by the defendants.

A careful consideration of the record on appeal, the briefs and oral argument of counsel for the parties reveals no reversible error.

Affirmed.

WILLIAMS, O. EDGAR, Jr., Associate Judge, concurs.

CROSS, J., concurs specially.

CROSS, Judge

(concurring specially).

I concur in the conclusion to affirm.

The suit, in essence, involves the location of the eastern boundary of plaintiff’s land, or conversely, the western boundary of defendant’s land. Both parties conceded that various deeds in the chain of title for both plaintiffs and defendants were ambiguous and indefinite.

The testimony of the surveyors at the trial was conflicting and did not lead to any irresistible factual conclusion. The question of whether the plaintiffs carried the burden of showing the strength of their title was answered in the negative by the trial judge. The trial judge sits as the trier of fact. His factual findings are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict and such factual findings will not be disturbed unless it is shown that there was a complete lack of substantial evidence to support the conclusions. First Atlantic National Bank of Daytona v. Cobbett, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 870.

It is fundamental that in actions in ejectment the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness of the title of the defendant. Alford v. Sinclair, Fla.1951, 55 So.2d 727; Crowder v. Miami Beach First National Bank, Fla.1951, 50 So,2d 174; Akin v. Godwin, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 604; 11 Fla.Jur., Ejectment, § 8.

Applying the above rules I conclude there was sufficient-compet'ent-substantial evidence to adequately support the findings and conclusions of the trial judge.