W. L. FREELAND AND HELEN C. FREELAND, HIS WIFE,
v.
THE P. P. & R. COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court decree quieting title in favor of appellee, holding that the description of land in a tax deed was fatally insufficient under Florida law because it lacked adequate connection to the plat on which the appellee relied for identification.
The tax deed description was insufficient and void. The designation 'Section 5' as a subdivision name is so unusual and contradicts the ordinary meaning of that term in the rectangular survey system that without more it cannot identify particular land, and the tax deed contained no reference connecting it to the plat upon which identification depended.
“the description of property in a tax deed must be certain in itself, or at least capable of being made certain, by matters referred to in the deed itself as relating to the description, and evidence aliunde not referred to in the deed cannot be used to ascertain the land intended to be conveyed.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for tax deed descriptions in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee filed a bill to quiet title to property in Dade County based on a tax deed dated December 11, 1940. The tax deed described the property as 'T…
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.
Appellee as complainant filed its bill and amended bill of complaint to quiet title to a parcel of land in Dade County. Both bills alleged that complainant deraigned title to said lands by tax deed dated December 11, 1940, recorded in deed book 2116, page 209, Public Records of Dade County, and that the former title owners were appellants here. A motion to dismiss was overruled, answer was filed and on final hearing the chancellor decreed the complainant to be the owner in fee of the property. This appeal is from the final decree.
The first question presented is whether or not the description of the lands in complaint’s tax deed is sufficient to identify and locate them.
The description in the tax deed is as follows: Tract 4, Block 4, Section 5, Township 54 South, Range 40 East, containing 10 acres more or less in the County of Dade, State of Florida.
This court has repeatedly held that “the description of property in a tax deed must be certain in itself, or at least capable of being made certain, by matters referred to in the deed itself as relating to the description, and evidence aliunde not referred to in the deed cannot be used to ascertain the land intended to be conveyed.” Schouten et ux v. Hunt, 146 Fla. 323, 200 So. 922 and cases therein cited.
Appellee contends that Section 5 was surveyed and plated as “Section 5,” by Richardson-Kellett Land Company on June 4, 1910, and that the plat thereof filed in the Clerk’s office of Dade County is sufficient identification of the lands. To call a subdivision “Section 5” is so out of the ordinary and the designation “Section 5” in our rectangular system of' land surveys has sucm a different connotation, that without more it would never be taken as the name of a particular subdivision. The material witness testified that without the plat they could not locate the lands. For this reason and the fact that there is nothing in the tax deed description to connect the lands with the plat, we think, under *153the case last cited, the description was insufficient and the tax deed was void.
It seems, therefore, that it is unnecessary to discuss the other point in the case.
Reversed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.