HICKS SUMNER ALLEN AND EDNA SUMNER CHILDS, APPELLANTS,
v.
ST. PETERSBURG BANK & TRUST COMPANY, A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellants challenged a judgment quieting title in favor of a bank, arguing the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) should not eliminate their interest in property. The court held that a tax deed constitutes a valid root of title under MRTA, and because appellants failed to file required notice within the thirty-year period, their interest was properly terminated.
A tax deed is a valid root of title under MRTA. Because the tax deed was recorded more than thirty years before the action and appellants did not file the notice required by Section 712.05 within that period, appellants' interest was properly extinguished and title vested exclusively in the bank.
[1] A tax deed can serve as a root of title under the Marketable Record Title Act.
[2] The Marketable Record Title Act operates to create marketable record title when a record title transaction affecting the land has been of record for not less than thirty…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“MRTA operates to correct defects in title by creating a marketable record title when the public records disclose a record title transaction affecting the .title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years.”
Establishes the core operation and purpose of the Marketable Record Title Act
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants' ancestor and the bank's predecessor in title were co-owners of the subject property. When they failed to pay taxes, the state acquired tit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Title Transaction cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Appellants challenge a final judgment quieting title in favor of appellee, and allege that the lower court erred in applying the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA), Section 712, Florida Statutes (1979), to terminate their interest. We affirm.
Appellants’ ancestor and appellee’s predecessor in title were mother and son who eo-owned the subject property. The co-owners failed to pay taxes, and the state acquired title to the land. In 1944, the trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund conveyed the land by Murphy Act deed to appellee’s predecessor only. Appellee began this action in 1979, alleging that the MRTA eliminated any interest claimed by appellants.
The effect of a tax deed to one of two prior co-tenants is simply a payment of taxes; the purchasing co-tenant’s interest is not enhanced except for the amount of taxes paid plus interest. Johnson v. Johnson, 179 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965); Albury v. Gordon, 164 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964); Taylor v. Taylor, 97 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957).
Thus, appellants’ ancestor maintained her interest in the land after the tax deed was recorded. At issue is whether that interest survives operation of MRTA. MRTA operates to correct defects in title by creating a marketable record title when the public records disclose a record title transaction affecting the .title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years.
Section 712.02, Florida Statutes (1979).
A title transaction is defined as “any recorded instrument or court proceeding which affects title to any estate or interest in land.” Section 712.01(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
Appellee’s 1944 Murphy deed is outside the required thirty year period, and the title is marketable if the Murphy deed was title transaction as contemplated by MRTA. Our supreme court has held a wild deed to be the basis of a root of title under MRTA. City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Company, 364 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1978).
Likewise, a forged deed can be a valid root of title. Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., 224 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).
Even void deeds to sovereignty lands held by the state of Florida can be a root of title to activate MRTA.1 Odom v. Deltona Corp., 341 So. 2d 977 (Fla.1977).
We hold that a tax deed is also a root of title under MRTA. The certainty of title necessary under MRTA requires that appellee’s title be cured to the exclusion of appellants’ interest.2 Section 712.04,. Florida Statutes (1979). Appellants could have maintained their interest by filing notice prescribed by Section 712.05, Florida Statutes (1979), within the thirty year period.
The record below does not indicate such notice was filed.
AFFIRMED.
GRIMES, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. . See Commentary, The Public Trust Doctrine and Ownership of Florida’s Navigable Lakes, 29 U.Fla.L.Rev. 730 (1977). These lands were in 1978 excepted from the operation of MRTA by statute. Section 712.03(7), Florida Statutes (1979).
. We note that none of the exceptions set forth in Section 712.03 were claimed by appellants.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emilio Cirelli v. ENT, 885 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…n title by creating a marketable record title when the public records disclose a record title transaction affecting the title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years.' ") (quoting Allen v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co., 383 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)). . Ex parte Cater, 772 So. 2d 1117 (Ala.2000); Tobias v. Dailey, 196 Ariz. 418, 998 P. 2d 1091 (Ct.App.2000); Bear Creek Dev. Corp. v. Genesee Found., 919 P. 2d 948, 951 (Colo.Ct.App.1996) (applying Colorado’s state constitution…
-
Hope v. Eartha Hope, 410 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ue for the trial court’s determination was whether the marketable record title act (MRTA)1 applies where a tax deed has been granted a co-tenant and the rights of third parties are not involved. Relying upon Allen v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co., 383 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), the trial court found that MRTA did cut off the rights of such co-tenant, and granted a summary judgment in favor of the appel-lees. The appellants argue that under equitable principles, a co-tenant cannot gain sole title to a c…
-
Maude Travick v. Parker, 436 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…efects in title by creating a marketable record title when the public records disclose a record title transaction affecting the title to the land which has been of record for not less than thirty years.” Allen v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Company, 383 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). Appellants claim title to the property by virtue of being the heirs of Celia Braswell, who held the property by warranty deed. Parker’s quitclaim deed from Ross, who bought the tax deed, was of record for thirty-five years before…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Odom v. The Deltona Corp., 341 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1976)
- City OF Miami v. ST. JOE Paper Co., 364 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1978)
- E. E. Marshall de bonis non of the Estate of Mathew A. Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., 224 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Albury v. Gordon, 164 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Hiram B. Johnson v. Johnson, 179 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 97 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)