Full Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROSEMARY G. KING; 125 POCO, LLC; and 123 POCO, LLC, Appellants, v. BRUCE ROORDA and DENISE ROORDA, Appellees. No. 2D22-678 February 3, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Hunter W. Carroll, Judge. James D. Gibson of Gibson, Kohl & Wolff, P.L., Sarasota, for Appellants. Bruce Roorda and Denise Roorda, pro se. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Rosemary King, 125 Poco, LLC, and 123 Poco, LLC (collectively, King and Poco), appeal from the final judgment in this property dispute among neighbors who live along a private road in Nokomis. We reverse the final judgment to the extent that it declared an express easement in favor of 121 Poco Place—currently owned by Bruce and Denise Roorda— over the south ten feet of the properties located at 123 Poco Place and 125 Poco Place and an express easement in favor of the properties located at 123 Poco Place and 125 Poco Place over the south ten feet of the Roordas' property. In all other respects, we affirm. The trial court's decision afforded every property on Poco Place the use of the whole twenty-foot-wide road—a result undisputedly consistent with the intent of the original grantors of the easements and with the use of the road by various property owners throughout the years. Unfortunately, this inverse-Solomonic1 approach was precluded by the original grantors' failure to legally effect their intent in light of black letter law providing that one cannot grant oneself an easement in one's own property. See, e.g., Morris v. Garcia, 224 So. 3d 268, n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (citing One Harbor Fin. Ltd. v. Hynes Props., LLC, 884 So. 2d 1039, 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)); Hensel v. Aurilio, 417 So. 2d 1035, 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ("Appellee could not, while he was the owner of both the dominant and servient estates, carve out an easement by grant to himself. It is black letter law that one cannot have an easement in his own land." (citing Winthrop v. Wadsworth, 42 So. 2d 541, 543-44 (Fla. 1949))). The original owners (the LePards) of what was later subdivided to become 121 Poco Place, 123 Poco Place, and 125 Poco Place were thus powerless to grant a road easement over that property to themselves because they already owned the land in fee. And when they ultimately conveyed the subdivided lots to the predecessors of the parties in this case, they did not create or retain any additional easements. 1 In I Kings 3:16–3:28 (Tanakh), to resolve a dispute between two women claiming to be the mother of a baby, King Solomon proposes cutting the baby in two and awarding half to each woman. The imposter reveals herself by agreeing to take half the baby, while the real mother pleads with Solomon to leave the baby alive and whole, even if it means giving the baby to the other woman. 2 That black letter law, however, does not apply to the express easement that the Roordas currently enjoy over the north ten feet of what was originally the Lockwoods' property. Moreover, we reject King and Poco's contention that the Roordas' easement does not extend the entire length of what was the Lockwoods' property but only to the western boundary of 113 Poco Place—the property immediately opposite the Roordas' property. Nothing in the record supports such a restricted construction of the easement. To the contrary, the declaration of easement provides for the creation of "a private driveway over, across, and upon the North ten (10) feet of [the Lockwoods' property] . . . and the South ten (10) feet of [the LePards' property]." (Emphasis added.) Because 123 Poco Place and 125 Poco Place also enjoy an easement over the north ten feet of what was originally the Lockwoods' property, our decision does not require that those properties be granted an implied easement or an easement by necessity over the Roordas' property in order to access the public road. See § 704.01, Fla. Stat. (2019). Although King and Poco emphatically warn of dire consequences if cars are permitted to travel both east and west along the same length of Poco Place, we note this is a private road with all of six houses on it. The exercise of reasonable caution and courtesy should suffice to prevent catastrophe. We therefore affirm the final judgment except to the extent that it declared express easements in favor of the Roordas' property over the south ten feet of the properties located at 123 Poco Place and 125 Poco Place and in favor of the properties located at 123 Poco Place and 125 Poco Place over the south ten feet of the Roordas' property. Accordingly, we remand for entry of an amended final judgment consistent with this opinion. 3 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. VILLANTI and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication. 4