Case Name: ESTATE of Myra ENGSKOW, Appellant, v. Peter CULLEN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-03-28
Citations: 428 So. 2d 388
Docket Number: No. 82-489
Parties: ESTATE of Myra ENGSKOW, Appellant, v. Peter CULLEN, Appellee.
Judges: HURLEY and DELL, JJ„ and H. MARK PURDY, Associate Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 428
Pages: 388–388

Head Matter:
ESTATE of Myra ENGSKOW, Appellant, v. Peter CULLEN, Appellee.
No. 82-489.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 28, 1983.
Stephen W. Toothaker of Toothaker & Sidweber, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Richard L. Polin, Fort Lauderdale, and Raymond J. Posgay, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The trial court properly found that appellant failed to present competent substantial evidence of a boundary dispute or uncertainty, an essential element of appellant's affirmative defenses to ejectment of boundary by agreement or boundary by acquiescence. See King v. Carden, 237 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Brooks v. Fletcher, 393 So.2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); and Seddon v. Edmondson, 411 So.2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm the final judgment of ejectment.
AFFIRMED.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ" and H. MARK PURDY, Associate Judge, concur.