Ferreyra, Edgardo; Menendez-Aponte, Luis; Gargaglione, Lucas

Rosenquest Law Firm, P.A.; Squire, Patton, Boggs

On October 16, 2024, after having heard oral argument, the Third District Court of Appeal rendered a per curiam opinion affirming the trial court’s order granting involuntary dismissal after a non-jury trial in the matter styled PAJ Investment Group, LLC v. El Lago N.W. 7th Condominium Association, Inc. The case arose out of a dispute over easement rights to access and fill adjoining submerged lands which had been under contract for over $30 million dollars. The Plaintiff sought to sell the submerged property to a developer, fill in the lake, and build over 600 condominium units. To do so, the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment from the Court that the easements were appurtenant and granted them unfettered access to the easements on our client’s land for the purposes of developing their adjoining property, along with an injunction which would have our client tear down their gates and surrender large portions of their parking lot to the Plaintiff. Senior Partner Luis Menendez-Aponte and Senior Associate Lucas Gargaglione successfully defended the condominium complex against the adjoining landowner/developer by establishing that the easements were in gross. The issue on appeal was whether the easements are appurtenant or in gross. On appeal, PAJ argued that the easements were appurtenant because they are perpetual, non-exclusive, granted ingress and egress, and allowed for other permissible uses, all of which would be essential to development of the property. While Senior Appellate Partner, Edgardo Ferreyra, Jr., on behalf of the Association maintained that the easements were in gross, because the prior easement holder did not own any property, and therefore, not attached to an estate, as well as that the language of the easements did not reference any dominant estate. The appellate court agreed with the Association, finding that the easements were not connected to a dominant and the prior easement holder did not own the dominant tenement. Thus, an easement appurtenant never comes into existence. Although easements in gross are not favored by the common law the Third District noted that it could not ignore the fact that the necessary elements of easements appurtenant were missing. Accordingly, it affirmed the trial court’s involuntary dismissal of this case.