META GRACE KEEBLER ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
INVESTMENTS UNLIMITED, INC., 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.
Keebler and other defendants appealed a declaratory judgment confirming that Investments Unlimited held fee simple title to fractional Section 31 in Walton County, Florida, and establishing the boundary between Sections 30 and 31. The court affirmed, relying on established case law regarding land boundary determinations.
The trial court properly found that Investments Unlimited holds fee simple title to fractional Section 31, and the northern boundary of that section is an extension of the northern boundary of Section 32 and southern boundary of Section 29 as shown on the subdivision plats of Frangista Beach, Sapphire Beach, and Warren Heights Subdivisions.
[1] A fractional section of land bordering the Gulf of Mexico can have its boundaries established by reference to subdivision plats.
[2] Title to fractional land can be established through a patent granted by the United States of America.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is therefore considered, ordered and decreed that the Plaintiff, Investments Unlimited, is the fee simple owner of fractional Section 31, Township 2 South, Range 21 West, Walton County, Florida, and that the northern boundary of such fractional section is and shall be an extension of the northern boundary of Section 32 and southern boundary of Section 29 as shown on the subdivision plats of Frangista Beach Subdivision, Sapphire Beach Subdivision and Warren Heights Subdivision.”
The trial court's key holding establishing Investments Unlimited's title and the precise boundary determination at issue
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Investments Unlimited brought suit to quiet title to fractional Section 31 and determine the boundary between Sections 30 and 31 in Walton C…
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 Boundary Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal appellants-defendants seek reversal of a final declaratory judgment and amended final judgment finding that appellee-plaintiff has fee simple title to a certain parcel of land bordering the Gulf of Mexico and establishing the boundaries of same.
Plaintiff filed suit seeking to quiet title to the fractional part of Section 31 and to determine the boundary between Sections 30 and 31, Township 2 North, Range 21 West, in Walton County, Florida. Plaintiff deraigns its title from a patent granted by the United States of America to the bank of Weiser, dated February 28, 1934.
Defendants deraign their title from a subdivision of the Southern Quarter of Section 30, Township 2 South, Range 21 West, Walton County, and a dependent resurvey of same, dated July 17, 1947, reflecting the Gulf of Mexico as being the Southern boundary of defendants’ lots located in Section 30. It is defendants’ contention that any lands now lying South of their property is by reason of accretion and has accrued to their lands.
Extensive testimony and documentary evidence was presented to the trial court which found:
“FINDINGS OF FACT
“1. There does presently exist and has existed at all times material hereto a fractional Section 31, Township 2 South, Range 21 West, Walton County, Florida.
“2. The preponderance of the evidence as to the location and boundaries of fractional Section 31, Township 2 South, Range 21 West, establishes the boundary to be as found in Plaintiff’s Exhibits 6-8, which are respectively the subdivision plats of Warren Heights Subdivision, Sapphire Beach Subdivision and Fran-gista Beach Subdivision.
“3. That Sections 30, 31, 29 and 32 have a common corner at a point some distance North of the Gulf of Mexico near the right of way of State Road 98 as is indicated on the subdivision plats above mentioned.
“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
“It is therefore considered, ordered and decreed that the Plaintiff, Investments Unlimited, is the fee simple owner of fractional Section 31, Township 2 South, Range 21 West, Walton County, Florida, and that the northern boundary of such fractional section is and shall be an extension of the northern boundary of Section 32 and southern boundary of Section 29 as shown on the subdivision plats of Frangista Beach Subdivision, Sapphire Beach Subdivision and Warren Heights Subdivision.”
Judge Wigginton, speaking for this court in Parish v. Spence, 149 So.2d 58 (1 Fla.App.1963), fully reviewed the applicable case law upon the subject which supports *858the trial court’s final declaratory judgment and amended final judgment. Upon the authority of Parish v. Spence, supra, the judgment appealed is
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carroll v. Zurich Ins. Co., 286 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…Supreme Court, 248 So. 2d 167); Bowman v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, 249 So. 2d 695 (certiorari dismissed by Supreme Court, 261 So. 2d 821); Bruce W. Little Plumbing Company, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 260 So. 2d 856. The Third District Court of Appeal in a recent case2 discusses and analyzes the cases of the Second District above cited, and concludes as did the Second District, that a Workmen’s Compensation Insurance Carrier was immune from common law liability…
Authorities Cited
- P. M. Parish v. Walter Spence and wife, 149 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)