Florida Statute 7.31 - Full Text and Legal Analysis

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title II
STATE ORGANIZATION

Chapter 7
COUNTY BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

7.31 Indian River County.—The boundary lines of Indian River County are as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of township thirty-one south, of range thirty-five east; thence east on the line dividing the townships thirty and thirty-one south, to the point where said line intersects the thread of the south fork of the St. Sebastian River; thence northerly down the thread of said stream to the main stream of the St. Sebastian River; thence down the thread of the St. Sebastian River to its confluence with the Indian River; thence east to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the centerline of the approach channel to the Sebastian Inlet from the Indian River; thence northeasterly along said centerline and continue northeasterly and easterly along the centerline of the Sebastian Inlet to the Atlantic Ocean; thence southward along the Atlantic coast, including the waters of the Atlantic Ocean within the jurisdiction of the State of Florida to the intersection of said Atlantic coast and a line lying 45.22 feet south of, as measured at right angles to, the township line dividing townships thirty-three and thirty-four south; thence west, parallel with, and 45.22 feet south of said township line, to the west right-of-way line of State Road A1A; thence northwesterly along said right-of-way line to the intersection of said right-of-way line and the north line of Lot 25, plat of Kansas City Colony, as recorded in Plat Book 4, page 23, of the public records of St. Lucie County, Florida. Said north line of Lot 25 lying 150 feet north of, and parallel with, as measured at right angles to, the township line dividing townships thirty-three and thirty-four south; thence west along the north line of said Lot 25 to the easterly mean high water line of Round Island Creek; thence meandering southeasterly along said mean high water line to its intersection with the township line dividing townships thirty-three and thirty-four south; thence west on said township line to range line dividing ranges thirty-five and thirty-six east; thence north between ranges thirty-five and thirty-six east to the northeast corner of section one, township thirty-three south, range thirty-five east; thence west on township line dividing townships thirty-two and thirty-three south, range thirty-five east to the range line dividing ranges thirty-four and thirty-five east; thence north on said range line to the northwest corner of township thirty-one south, range thirty-five east, being the place of beginning.

History.—s. 1, ch. 10148, 1925; CGL 76; s. 2, ch. 59-486; s. 1, ch. 91-39; s. 1, ch. 2020-18.

F.S. 7.31 on Google Scholar

F.S. 7.31 on CourtListener

Amendments to 7.31

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 7.31

Total Results: 1 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First

Copy

McInerney v. Klovstad, 935 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 1459579

...For the reasons explained hereafter, we reverse. We review a final order granting summary judgment de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). The McInerneys contend that the trial court erroneously construed section 7.31 of Silver Lake's subdivision declaration....

...They also argue that entering summary judgment was erroneous because the Klovstads failed to conclusively prove that there were no material facts in dispute and failed to address their affirmative defenses. Because we agree with the McInerneys' first contention, we do not need to address the second. Section 7.31 of Silver Lake's subdivision declaration provides in pertinent part: Side yard setbacks shall be five (5) feet on one side and five (5) feet on *531 the other side, with a minimum of ten (10) feet between buildings....

...lot. Hence, while the space between houses is ten feet under both regimes, it is divided differently, creating the dispute presented here. In its final judgment, the trial court concluded, in pertinent part: The Court concludes that the language of § 7.31 of the Declaration is unambiguous in reflecting the intention of the parties thereto to establish a minimum 5-foot side setback for all properties in Silver Lake, unless Seminole County requires a more restrictive setback requirement, in which event Seminole County's setback requirements takes precedence. This construction is reasonable and logical and gives meaning and effect to all of the language of § 7.31....

...The construction argued by Defendants, that Seminole County's setback requirements take precedence because the Declaration's setback requirements are different from Seminole County's setback requirements, is not reasonable and logical, does not give meaning and effect to all provisions of § 7.31, and contravenes the expressed intent of the Declaration. In determining whether the subdivision restrictions or Seminole County ordinances control the minimum side yard setbacks, the McInerneys contend that the term "any conflict," as used in section 7.31, means that if any difference exists between the subdivision's restrictions and Seminole County's ordinances, the ordinances control....

...Grodetz, 442 So.2d 344, 344-45 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (citing Washingtonian Apartment Hotel Co. v. Schneider, 75 So.2d 907 (Fla.1954)); see Moore; Orange Gardens Civic Ass'n. Therefore, in order to determine whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of section 7.31, we must first determine whether its meaning is ambiguous....

...Destiny Owners Ass'n, 856 *532 So.2d 1090, 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (stating that "[l]anguage in a document is ambiguous when it is uncertain in meaning and may be fairly understood in more ways than one and is susceptible of interpretation in opposite ways"). The final sentence of section 7.31 reads: "If there is any conflict between this section and applicable zoning regulations of the proper governing authority, said zoning regulations shall take precedence," but it does not define what "any conflict" means....

...mined that the Seminole County ordinance prevailed in this instance and approved the McInerneys' addition based on its compliance with the Seminole County setback requirements. Equally true, it appears that the intent of Silver Lake's restriction in section 7.31 was to establish aesthetically-pleasing setbacks and ensure that construction did not encroach on neighboring lots....

...Lake would want to maintain its five-foot side setback provisions. Also, the Klovstads assert, and the trial court agreed, that Silver Lake's five-foot setbacks were more restrictive than Seminole County's. However, that is not necessarily the case. Section 7.31 is less restrictive on one side of the line separating two lots (Silver Lake's five-foot setback is less restrictive than Seminole County's seven-foot setback), and more restrictive on the other side (Silver Lake's five-foot setback is more restrictive than Seminole County's three-foot setback). We conclude that since section 7.31 is fairly subject to more than one interpretation regarding the primacy of Seminole County's regulations, its terms are ambiguous. Section 7.31 of Silver Lake's restrictions was poorly drafted, causing the difference of opinion between the parties. If we were free to interpret the restriction, the Klovstads' interpretation is more appealing, as it appears to us more likely to enhance property values and maintain the neighborhood's aesthetics. However, based on our conclusion that section 7.31 is ambiguous, the rules of construction require that it be construed against the Klovstads who seek to enforce the restriction....