ADELA F. SHEKTER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROCKERMAN BUILDERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
Adela Shekter appealed a decree voiding her quit claim deed to buffer zone tracts of land in a Miami subdivision. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the original subdivider intended to convey all property shown on the replat to the subdividing corporation, not reserve the buffer tracts for himself.
The quit claim deed was null and void. The court held that the subdivider intended to convey all property shown on the revised plat to the subdividing corporation, including Tracts B and C, and did not intend to reserve these parcels for himself.
“The subdivider, by failing to indicate that Tracts B and C and the area marked "canal" were not to be included, by implication, clearly recognized that they would be included in the plat.”
Establishes that the subdivider's failure to exclude these tracts from the plat indicated they were meant to be included.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn the early 1950s, a subdivider created a replat of lots in a Miami subdivision, designating two-foot-wide buffer strips along the north and south pe…
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.
The appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse final decree which held a certain quit claim deed [under which appellant made claim to tracts of land] to be null and void. We affirm.
In the early 1950’s, a predecessor in title to certain of the appellees caused a replat to be made of certain lots in a subdivision located in Miami, Dade County, Florida. At that time § 177.08, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provided in part as follows:
* * * * * *
“ * * * Excepted parcels must be marked ‘Not included in this plat.’ * * * But no strip or parcel of land *33shall he reserved by the owner when recording a subdivision, unless the same is sufficient in size and area to be of some practical use or service.”
In the replat, along the north perimeter and south perimeter of the property involved, the subdivider designated a “Tract B” and “Tract C”, which was a strip of land two feet wide, one of which was approximately 900 feet long and the other approximately 700 feet long. It is apparent that these tracts were not suitable for building purposes, and the evidence indicated that they were created in the plat for the purpose of acting as a buffer zone between the property to the north and that to the south and that said parcels had been beautified and improved during the development of the subdivision.
The subdivider, by failing to indicate that Tracts B and C and the area marked “canal” were not to be included, by implication, clearly recognized that they would be included in the plat.
Thereafter, the subdivider conveyed both blocks in the -replat to the predecessors in title and, subsequent thereto, after the death of the original subdivider the appellant acquired a quit claim deed to Tracts B and C and the area marked “canal” from the executor of the estate of the subdivider and brought the instant action.
On the whole, the record clearly indicates an intention by the subdivider [as the grantor in the deed that conveyed all the blocks in the subdivision] to include therein all the tracts applicable to the blocks in question in the instant case. If the sub-divider had only conveyed one block instead of both of the blocks involved in the subdivision, then there might be some room for argument that he had intended to reserve certain of the property. However, it is apparent from this record that he intended to convey to the subdividing corporation all of the property he possessed according to the revised plat, plus the fact that Tracts B and C were a part of Block 2 of the re-plat, the same as Tract A; there being no restrictions or limitations in reference to the tracts on the replat.
Therefore, for the reasons stated .above, the final decree here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.