STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, APPELLANT,
v.
PINETA COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE; THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, APPELLANT, V. LLOYD K. JOHNSON, AND MARION JOHNSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES; THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, APPELLANT, V. WAKULLA SILVER SPRINGS COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case addresses whether a circuit court has jurisdiction to determine boundary lines between private landowners and state-owned submerged lands, and to quiet title to those lands. The court held that the circuit court does have jurisdiction, rejecting the state's claims of sovereign immunity and lack of jurisdiction.
Yes, the circuit court has jurisdiction to determine the boundary line and quiet title in this context. The court found no legal reason to disturb the trial court's order denying the State Board's motions to dismiss.
[1] A circuit court has jurisdiction to determine boundary disputes between upland owners and state-owned submerged lands.
[2] A complaint seeking a declaratory judgment to establish the mean high tide line is a proper cause of action against the state.
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“On consideration of the complaints and the briefs of the parties we hold no reason in law has been shown to disturb the order of the trial court denying the motions to dismiss.”
This quote establishes the appellate court's agreement with the lower court's decision to deny the motion to dismiss.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrivate landowners (appellees) filed actions against the State Board of Trustees (appellant) seeking to establish the boundary line between their upla…
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 Quiet Title cases and more on FLexlaw
CARROLL, Judge.
The appellees who are upland owners of property adjoining submerged lands owned by the state and held in trust by the appellant, filed actions seeking judgments declaring the location of the boundary line separating their lands from the state lands and to quiet title to their lands within the boundaries as established by such judgments. The complaints alleged that as to the location of the “mean high tide line” marking the limit of the ownerships there was uncertainty and dispute, because of certain reasons and circumstances therein stated. After answers were filed by defendants and proceedings for discovery were had and the causes had been set for trial, the defendant sought a dismissal of the complaints on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, contending lack of jurisdiction of the circuit court for determination of boundary disputes in the actions which were to quiet title, and claiming sovereign immunity. The motions to dismiss were denied, and defendant appealed the several orders so entered.
On consideration of the complaints and the briefs of the parties we hold no reason in law has been shown to disturb the order of the trial court denying the motions to dismiss. The dispute between the litigants as to the location of a variable boundary line involved their respective claims to ownership of the same land to some extent. The circuit court had jurisdiction over the controversy presented by the complaint, under Art. V, § 6(3) Fla.Const. F.S.A. and § 65.061 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and the complaint made a case for declaratory judgment, for determination of a “fact upon which the existence or nonexistence of such * * * right does or may depend” (§ 86.011(2) Fla.Stat., F.S. A.), and in view of expressed doubt of plaintiffs regarding their rights under deeds (§ 86.021 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). In the circumstances presented the actions were maintainable against the State Board, under § 69.041 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.; and see State Road Department v. Tharp, 146 Fla. 745, 1 So. 2d 868.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State of Fla. & Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc., 338 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)…raditionally been called upon to answer in ejectment [*20] and quiet title actions, but declaratory judgment is also an appropriate means for resolution of such a controversy. State Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Pineta Co., 287 So. 2d 126 (Fla.3d App.Dist.1973); Bozeman v. Roberts, 188 So. 2d 23 (Fla.1st App.Dist.1966). Contra, Stark v. Marshall, 67 So. 2d 235 (Fla.1953) (alternative basis for decision). The form of action cannot, however, alter the “established maxim of statutory co…
-
The Fla. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Wakulla Silver Springs Co., 362 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…Also, appellant filed a motion to dismiss portions of appellee’s complaint. This motion was denied by the trial court on April 1, 1973, and affirmed by this court on appeal in State Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Pineta Co., 287 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). This action was tried non-jury before the Honorable Ignatuis Lester on several days in April, May, and June of 1975. The final judgment entered by the trial judge on April 6, 1977, made extensive findings of fact and conclusions…1 / 2
-
Toombs v. Modesto GIL, 353 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…judgment including all parties which may be affected by the outcome, would be the course of action plaintiffs should pursue. See, e. g. Shaw v. Williams, 50 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1950); State Bd. of Trustees of Internal Imp. Trust Fund v. Pineta Company, 287 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). Judgment reversed. . There is a difference of 10 feet between the occupational and plat lines.…
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
- State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Tharp, 146 Fla. 745 (Fla. 1941)