DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

EDNA L. GUETTLER LC, LLC, a Florida limited liability company,

Appellant,

v.

ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA,

a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and

VERO PRODUCERS, INC., a Florida corporation,

Appellees.

No. 4D2023-1264

[August 21, 2024]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

562019CA000701A. 

Eric M. Levine and Adam G. Schwartz of Atlas | Solomon, PLLC, Stuart,

for appellant.

Casey Walker of Murphy & Walker, P.L., Vero Beach, for appellee Vero 

Producers, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

WARNER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

WARNER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

This appeal arises from a thorough final judgment determining that 

appellee, the dominant owner of an easement, did not fail to comply with 

the covenants of a sixty-year-old easement. The easement originally 

provided for a private right of way between the plaintiff’s predecessor’s 

cattle ranch and the dominant owner’s cattle ranch. Thirty years later, 

the dominant owner sold his ranch to appellee, who planted an orange 

grove. To maintain the grove, the new dominant owner needed the 

cooperation of another adjacent landowner and executed an easement to 
2

the adjacent owner to use the property as a private right of way. Because 

the dominant owner did not have the authority to grant the easement, the 

dominant owner requested that the servient owner execute an easement 

allowing for this use, and the evidence showed that the servient owner 

agreed. Unfortunately, however, the servient owner had placed the 

property in the plaintiff corporation. Although the original servient owners 

were the officers of the corporation and signed the new easement 

individually, no one signed for the corporation, rendering the easement 

ineffectual. No one challenged the easement, and the easement was used 

by both the dominant owner and its adjacent landowner for another thirty 

years without incident. I agree with the trial court that competent 

substantial evidence shows that appellant waived and was estopped from

denying the validity of the easement.

In addition, the trial court granted a permanent injunction against the 

servient owner because it found that the servient owner was essentially 

harassing the dominant owner and the users of the right of way by: (1) 

installing multiple “gap gates” to prevent cattle movement, but cattle did 

not use the easement and the gates unduly impeded use of the right of 

way; (2) erecting confusing signs imposing rules on use of the right of way, 

including the tonnage of trucks; and (3) posting armed guards who 

demanded IDs for persons using the easement.

The trial court entered a mandatory injunction required appellant to 

remove the “gap gates” and:

(ii.) to promptly equip the two remaining metal cow gates on 

the north end and south end of the Easement Area with (a) an 

electronic means of entry such as a keypad or remote 

controller or (b) a combination lock with the combination 

provided to VPI (if there is concern that cattle may enter onto 

the roadway, Plaintiff may install a private use cattle guard 

with an H-15 -12 tons per axle load rating); and (iii.) to 

promptly remove from the Easement Area all of the confusing 

and misleading signs which are posted thereon.

The trial court also entered a prohibitory injunction:

(i.) prohibiting Plaintiff from placing any new or additional 

permanent obstructions in the Easement Area . . . (ii.) 

prohibiting Plaintiff from placing any new or additional 

confusing and/or misleading signage in the Easement Area 

(The parties may mutually agree to the placement of limited 

reasonable signage regarding the safe use of the easement 
3

roadway); and, (iii.) prohibiting Plaintiff from having any 

guards or other personnel harassing or interfering with the 

rights of VPI or its invitees to utilize the Easement Area.

As to the mandatory injunction requirement that appellant install an 

electronic gate or a manual gate with a lock, no evidence was adduced 

regarding the necessity of replacing the existing gates. Because of this 

deficiency, I conclude that the trial court went beyond the pleadings and 

evidence. As to the removal of “confusing and misleading signs” and the 

prohibition of posting any “new or additional confusing and/or misleading 

signage in the Easement Area,” these terms are too vague to be enforced. 

If the court intended to require the removal of signs which created 

restrictions on the use of the easement greater than what is contained in 

its terms, it should have used more specific language. As the injunction 

is written, a sign which says “No trespassing” would not be allowed, even 

though the easement area is not open to the public, and incidents of 

trespass and vandalism on the servient property have occurred. Finally, 

prohibiting appellant from “having any guards or other personnel 

harassing or interfering with the rights of the VPI or its invitees to utilize 

the Easement Area” interferes with appellant’s own right to protect its 

property, as there was evidence of trespass and vandalism, including the 

death of cattle. Certainly, guards have no right to “harass” the dominant

owner’s invitees, but posting of an armed guard to protect the servient

owner’s property is not necessarily harassment. As appellant points out 

in its brief, “[i]f merely having a guard check identification is itself 

harassing interference with access, every gated community in Florida 

should be on notice.” On these points, I would reverse for the trial court 

to reconsider and narrow the permanent injunction.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.