JOHN M. ANDERSON, ET AL.,
v.
ELWOOD MCLAUGHLIN
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 affirmed a lower court's decree quieting title, holding that the complainant proved sufficient adverse possession under color of title for the statutory period.
Yes, the complainant proved sufficient adverse possession under color of title for the statutory period.
“The controlling question is whether or not the complainant showed, by clear and convincing proof, open, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession, under color of title, of the real estate involved, for a period of seven years or more preceding the institution of suit.”
This quote states the central legal issue the court had to decide.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe complainant filed suit to quiet title to real estate. The core issue was whether the complainant had demonstrated open, adverse, continuous, and u…
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 Color Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal brings for review decree in favor of complainant in a suit to quiet title.
The controlling question is whether or not the complainant showed, by clear and convincing proof, open, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted possession, under color of title, of the real estate involved, for a period of seven years or more preceding the institution of suit.
The question must be answered in the affirmative and, as a consideration of the entire record discloses no' reversible error, the decree must be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules' of this Court.