Construction Partner David Harrigan obtained favorable Final Judgment in a CD matter styled Lincolnshire Maximo, LLC v. Marina Walk, LLC. The Plaintiff is the owner of a marina in south St. Petersburg and the submerged lots of a canal that leads from the marina to Boca Ciega Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The Defendant is the owner of a residential apartment building directly east of the marina and separated only by a city street and right of way. The claims by the Plaintiff involved the existence of an underground 24-inch storm drainage pipe, approximately 57 feet in length, that runs due west beneath the Plaintiff’s parking lot originating from Defendant’s property and running beneath the City’s right of way for 37th Street South, and terminating at an outfall incorporated into the seawall for the marina. The pipe drains a portion of the storm water flowing from the Defendant’s property. No recorded easement exists for that portion of the pipe that crosses beneath the Plaintiff’s property.
The Plaintiff brought claims for negligence, trespass, and private nuisance associated with use of and discharges through the drain pipe, which the Court dismissed at the conclusion of trial in response to the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntary Dismissal of those claims. On the remaining claims, the Plaintiff sought declaratory relief to confirm their property rights regarding the presence of the pipe, enjoining the Defendant for further use of the Pipe for drainage, and demanding damages in the form of equitable disgorgement of profits from the Defendant’s rental property.
Recounting the significant history of the drainage pipe since the late 1950s, the Court recognized that stormwater drainage continued through the drainpipe without objection until 2018, when the Defendant began redevelopment/conversion of its property from a hotel to an apartment building. At that time, Plaintiff voiced its objection to the continued use of the drainpipe and sought through various means to obstruct and deny the Defendant’s property any further ability to drain a portion of its stormwater runoff through the pipe.
The Court, in considering the totality of the evidence and testimony at trial, determined that the Defendant established through clear and convincing evidence all elements of a prescriptive easement for the drainpipe, thus denying the Plaintiff all recovery sought on its claims associated with the Defendant’s use of the pipe. As to all counts of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint not previously dismissed pursuant to the Defendant’s Motion for Involuntarily Dismissal, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.
