Florida Homestead Services - Florida Homestead Exemption Act Forum
Visit our main website at Florida Homestead Services.com
 | Forums | Sign Up | Reply | Search | Statistics |
Mortgage and Real Estate Industry Florida Homestead Services - Florida Homestead Exemption Act Forum / Mortgage and Real Estate Industry /  

Real estate; removing clouds

Author johnbsims3
Admin Male

#1 | Posted: 20 Oct 2006 07:24 
Florida Statutes Annotated
Title VI. Civil Practice and Procedure (Chapters 45-89)
Chapter 65. Quieting Title

FS Ch. 65.021. Real estate; removing clouds


Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions brought by any person or corporation, whether in actual possession or not, claiming legal or equitable title to land against any person or corporation not in actual possession, who has, appears to have or claims an adverse legal or equitable estate, interest, or claim therein to determine such estate, interest, or claim and quiet or remove clouds from the title to the land. It is no bar to relief that the title has not been litigated at law or that there is only one litigant to each side of the controversy or that the adverse claim, estate, or interest is void upon its face, or though not void on its face, requires extrinsic evidence to establish its validity.


CREDIT(S)
Laws 1899, c. 4739, § 1; Gen.St.1906, § 1950; Rev.Gen.St.1920, § 3213; Laws 1925, c. 10223, § 1; Comp.Gen.Laws 1927, § 5005; Laws 1955, c. 29737, § 2; Fla.St.1965, § 66.11; Laws 1967, c. 67-254, § 20.

CROSS REFERENCES
Circuit court jurisdiction, title to real property, see Const. Art. 5, § 20; § 26.012.
General rules of pleading, see Civil Procedure Rule 1.110.
Injunction to prevent sale of property exempt from forced sale, see § 222.09.
Injunctive relief, see § 60.01; Civil Procedure Rule 1.610.
Marketable record title law, see § 712.01 et seq.
Mineral rights and easements, extinguishment and preservation, see § 704.05.
Railroad land grants, title of purchasers confirmed, see § 270.02.

LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES

Quieting title to real property. 1 U.Fla.L.Rev. 395 (1948).


NOTES OF DECISIONS
Admissibility of evidence 43
Adverse possession, title 17
Allegations of possession, complaint 35
Allegations of title, complaint 36
Amendment, complaint 37
Answer 40
Building restrictions, remedy 12
Cancellation of land contracts, remedy 13
Cloud on title 4-8
Cloud on title - In general 4
Cloud on title - Contract for sale 5
Cloud on title - Judgments 8
Cloud on title - Mortgages 7
Cloud on title - Tax deed 6
Cloud set out in detail, complaint 38
Common source, title 18
Complaint 34-39
Complaint - In general 34
Complaint - Allegations of possession 35
Complaint - Allegations of title 36
Complaint - Amendment 37
Complaint - Cloud set out in detail 38
Complaint - Tax deed 39
Conditions precedent 15
Construction and application 2
Contract for sale, cloud on title 5
Counterclaim 41
Defendant in possession 22
Defenses 29, 30
Defenses - In general 29
Defenses - Laches 30
Equitable title, possession 23
Evidence 42-44
Evidence - In general 42
Evidence - Admissibility of evidence 43
Evidence - Sufficiency of evidence 44
Injunctive relief, relief awarded 46
Judgments, cloud on title 8
Jurisdiction 9
Laches, defenses 30
Legal title, possession 24
Mortgages, cloud on title 7
Mortgages, title 19
Nature of remedy 3
Necessary parties 32
Parties 31-33
Parties - In general 31
Parties - Necessary parties 32
Parties - Proper parties 33
Personal property, remedy 14
Possession 21-27
Possession - In general 21
Possession - Defendant in possession 22
Possession - Equitable title 23
Possession - Legal title 24
Possession - Tax deed 25
Possession - Wild and unoccupied land 26
Possession - Wrongful possession 27
Proper parties 33
Relief awarded 45, 46
Relief awarded - In general 45
Relief awarded - Injunctive relief 46
Remedy 10-14
Remedy - In general 10
Remedy - Building restrictions 12
Remedy - Cancellation of land contracts 13
Remedy - Personal property 14
Remedy - Tax title 11
Review 48
Riparian rights 28
Sufficiency of evidence 44
Summary judgment 47
Tax deed, cloud on title 6
Tax deed, complaint 39
Tax deed, possession 25
Tax deed, title 20
Tax title, remedy 11
Title 16-20
Title - In general 16
Title - Adverse possession 17
Title - Common source 18
Title - Mortgages 19
Title - Tax deed 20
Validity 1
Wild and unoccupied land, possession 26
Wrongful possession 27

1. Validity

Statute which was intended to enlarge the jurisdiction of the courts of chancery in quieting the title to real estate, if otherwise constitutional, could not be construed so as to impair the constitutional right of trial by jury. Briles v. Bradford, 54 Fla. 501, 44 So. 937 (1907). Jury 10
2. Construction and application

Bill in equity to quiet title was permitted, and upon removal of case to Federal court statute would be applied. Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, S.D.Fla.1922, 283 F. 150.

Statute did not abrogate, but was subject to, equitable rules regarding quieting tax titles. Cremin v. Quigley, 104 Fla. 133, 139 So. 383 (1932). Quieting Title 19

Equity will set aside a deed to land, regular in form but void in fact, as against the valid title of one in possession, where the claimant under the deed insists that it is good but refrains from suit to test the title. Conant v. Buesing, 23 Fla. 559, 2 So. 882 (1887). Quieting Title 4
3. Nature of remedy

Under statute, a bill in equity could be brought to remove clouds on a title without prior adjudication at law. Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, S.D.Fla.1922, 283 F. 150. Quieting Title 11

Quiet title suit in which court expressly determined that it had jurisdiction of subject matter and named defendants and also alleged jurisdictional facts to support same effectively barred any right of owner of mineral right and her heirs or successors in title and accordingly there was not a breach of warranty by vendors. Schoenrock v. Ballard, App. 1 Dist., 185 So.2d 760 (1966). Covenants 100(1); Judgment 542
4. Cloud on title--In general

Where grantee did not deny that she had received only an undivided one-half interest in a life estate, fact that she claimed she had been defrauded by grantor did not constitute a cloud on the title of grantor, and, therefore, did not afford grounds for quiet title action by grantor. Brass v. Reed, 64 So.2d 646 (1953). Quieting Title 7(1)

Recorded plats, purporting to subdivide lands for purpose of establishing claim of dedication of streets, constituted cloud on title. North Bay Shore Land Co. v. Pollard, 99 Fla. 1287, 128 So. 809 (1930). Quieting Title 7(1)

A deed showing on its face that the grantor was out of possession at its date, and that the land was then held adversely by another, does not create such a cloud upon the adverse claimant's title as will authorize the interposition of a court of equity in his behalf for its removal. Reyes v. Middleton, 36 Fla. 99, 17 So. 937 (1895). Quieting Title 7(3)

When the cloud proposed to be removed by the bill would not, if an action of ejectment was brought upon it against the true owner, be sufficient to cause said owner to be put to proof of its inefficiency, and was not apparently a good title, no cloud exists and the interference of a court of equity can not be invoked. Benner v. Kendall, 21 Fla. 584 (1885).

Where an action can not be sustained upon a conveyance, in the absence of rebutting proof, it can not be said to be a cloud upon the title. Davidson v. Seegar, 15 Fla. 671 (1876). Quieting Title 7(3)
5. ---- Contract for sale, cloud on title

Where neither vendee nor one who claimed interest under contract for purchase of realty by virtue of having furnished vendee money paid under contract with knowledge of vendor took steps to carry out terms of contract for some 15 years thereafter. Vendor could treat contract as "abandoned", entitling him to have contract cancelled as a cloud on title, without returning payments made under contract. Rosenthal v. Largo Land Co., 146 Fla. 81, 200 So. 233 (1941). Quieting Title 14; Vendor And Purchaser 86

Record of unacknowledged contract for sale of realty did not constitute constructive notice as to existence of such contract, and would not be cloud on title of grantor thereunder. Lassiter v. Curtiss-Bright Co., 129 Fla. 728, 177 So. 201 (1937). Quieting Title 7(2)

Expunging from record by clerk of circuit court of a contract for sale of realty which had been recorded, notwithstanding it had not been acknowledged and hence was not entitled to record, left record title unclouded because the record was never sufficient to cloud title. Lassiter v. Curtiss-Bright Co., 129 Fla. 728, 177 So. 201 (1937). Quieting Title 7(2)

Unacknowledged contract of option or sale signed by married woman concerning her separate property, though not entitled to be recorded and not capable of specific performance against her, may with public record thereof constitute cloud on title. Keene v. Latimer, 102 Fla. 841, 136 So. 331 (1931). Quieting Title 7(3)
6. ---- Tax deed, cloud on title

An attempt by former owner or claimant of land sold for taxes to assert his record title thereto after execution of tax deed constitutes cloud on tax title, holder of which may apply to equity court for removal thereof. Taff v. Hodge, 132 Fla. 642, 182 So. 230 (1938). Taxation 793
7. ---- Mortgages, cloud on title

A foreclosure being had by the assignee of the satisfied mortgage under which a decree and deed are procured, a grantee of the mortgagor not being made a party, and having no notice of the proceeding until after a sale under the decree, such grantee may maintain a suit to enjoin the parties from conveying or asserting claim to the property, and to annul such a decree and deed, the same being a cloud upon his title. Matheson v. Thompson, 20 Fla. 790 (1884). Quieting Title 7(4)
8. ---- Judgments, cloud on title

Grantee of land from grantor having outstanding against her a void judgment may maintain bill in equity to cancel judgment as cloud upon title to land. Protective Holding Corp. v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1936). Quieting Title 39

Question whether recorded certified transcript of foreign judgment constitutes lien because of status of defendant as married woman at time of judgment and nature of cause of action as being one ex contractu is one for judicial inquiry in appropriate proceeding in equity brought in court where record exists to cancel record as cloud on married woman's title. Protective Holding Corp. v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1936). Quieting Title 7(4)

Sheriff's deed to land attached and afterwards levied and sold under execution upon void judgment against nonresident defendant of whom court had not acquired jurisdiction is void, and will be set aside as cloud upon title of holder of legal title. Cornwell v. Williford, 73 Fla. 305, 73 So. 795 (1917). Quieting Title 7(4)

Where a conveyance has been made by a husband to his wife on a valuable consideration not named in the deed, and the land has been sold under execution against the husband in an action brought after the record of the deed, such sale is a cloud on the title of the wife. Pettit v. Coachman, 51 Fla. 521, 41 So. 401 (1906). Quieting Title 7(4)

An administrator's deed purporting to convey land sold by him under an order of a court which, as to its power to make such an order, is a court of special and limited jurisdiction, is not, nor are such deeds, and order and other sale proceedings, a cloud upon the title when the fact essential to the court's jurisdiction to make the order does not appear on the order or the proceedings upon which such order is based. Sloan v. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53, 5 So. 603 (1889). Quieting Title 7(4)
9. Jurisdiction

Quieting title or removal of clouds on title to real estate is subject of equity jurisdiction. Tibbetts v. Olson, 91 Fla. 824, 108 So. 679 (1926); Brecht v. BurNe Co., 91 Fla. 345, 108 So. 173 (1926).

Original jurisdiction to try and determine issues with reference to title to and ownership of realty is vested exclusively in circuit court. Peeler v. Duval County, 66 So.2d 247 (1953). Courts 472.1

Jurisdiction of proceedings to quiet title and prevent litigation is inherent in courts of equity. Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350 (1926). Quieting Title 1

In suits to quiet title, it is not essential that the court have jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Hawkins v. Rellim Inv. Co., 92 Fla. 784, 110 So. 350 (1926).

Jurisdiction over proceedings to quiet title and prevent litigation is inherent in courts of equity. McDaniel v. McElvy, 91 Fla. 770, 108 So. 820 (1926). Quieting Title 1

Antecedent of this section was intended to enlarge the jurisdiction of courts of chancery. Johnson v. Baker, 73 Fla. 6, 74 So. 210 (1917).

Courts of equity have jurisdiction of suits to quiet title. Griffin v. Orman, 9 Fla. 22 (1860). Quieting Title 1
10. Remedy--In general

Suit to quiet title must be legally predicated. Cremin v. Quigley, 104 Fla. 133, 139 So. 383 (1932). Quieting Title 27

Suit to remove cloud created by record of unproved and unacknowledged sales agreement would not lie, since title was not affected thereby. Leatherman v. Schwab, 98 Fla. 885, 124 So. 459 (1929). Quieting Title 7(2)

If purchaser removes without leaving information as to address, vendor may exercise option to terminate land sale contract for default in payments and remove cloud on title. Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926).

A homesteader may obtain relief in equity against a judgment against him, apparently a lien that affects the salability of the homestead. Clements v. Henderson, 70 Fla. 260, 70 So. 439 (1915). Homestead 209

A bill to remove a cloud does not lie against a defendant alleged to have possession himself of certain of the lands, to have leased others of them to other parties, and to be otherwise attempting to exercise control over all the lands. Barco v. Doyle, 50 Fla. 488, 39 So. 103 (1905). Quieting Title 7(1)

The basis for equitable interference in the removal of a cloud from the title to real estate is that the instrument, apparently valid, but void in fact, may be vexatiously or injuriously used against the rightful owner, after the evidence to invalidate it has been lost, and the owner being in possession, can not immediately protect his rights by any legal proceeding. Brown v. Solary, 37 Fla. 102, 19 So. 161 (1896).
11. ---- Tax title, remedy

If land is sold for a tax improperly assessed, the true owner, if in possession, may maintain a bill in equity against tax purchaser to quiet title. Crompton v. Kirkland, 157 Fla. 89, 24 So.2d 902 (1946). Taxation 799

One securing tax deed before recording of deed conveying to others former record owner's title to land described was entitled to bring suit to remove resulting cloud on tax title. Taff v. Hodge, 132 Fla. 642, 182 So. 230 (1938). Taxation 793

Validity of tax deeds may be established incidentally by removal of claims or conveyances construed to be cloud on title. Day v. Benesh, 104 Fla. 58, 139 So. 448 (1932). Taxation 793

One in possession claiming title under tax deed could maintain amended bill to quiet title, where adverse claimant recorded his deed after commencement of suit. Day v. Benesh, 104 Fla. 58, 139 So. 448 (1932). Taxation 809(4)

Bill cannot be maintained merely to quiet tax title against former record title, which has not been asserted subsequent to issuance of tax deed. Woodman v. Jones, 101 Fla. 177, 133 So. 620 (1931). Taxation 793

Bill in equity cannot be maintained solely to test validity of tax deed. Florida Cent. & G. Ry. v. Boswell, 98 Fla. 117, 123 So. 567 (1929). Taxation 798
12. ---- Building restrictions, remedy

Where all owners of lots subject to residential restrictions, except those who had acquired lots for park purposes, wished restrictions removed, and it appeared that at either end of restricted area, which consisted of some 70 lots along ocean and abutting on paved highway, were located a trailer park, service station, bar, restaurant, casino, fishing pier, and apartment house, such circumstances were sufficient to warrant decree removing restrictions on theory that effect of restrictive covenants would be frustrated and brought to naught by changed conditions in the vicinity. Dade County v. Thompson, 146 Fla. 66, 200 So. 212 (1941). Quieting Title 7(2)

Each suit for the removal of restrictive covenants from land must be determined upon the equities presented in the particular case, the test being whether or not the original purpose or intent of the parties to the restrictive covenants can be reasonably carried out. Dade County v. Thompson, 146 Fla. 66, 200 So. 212 (1941). Quieting Title 7(2)

In vendor's action to cancel sales agreement covering water front property for vendee's violation of restriction requiring residential use of property and prohibiting erection of residences valued at less than $3,500, evidence that erection of a paper mill and filling in of water front had destroyed value of property and made it useful for industrial purposes only and that other water front property was conveyed by vendor without such restrictions justified finding that restrictions should be cancelled because of change of conditions. Port St. Joe Dock & Terminal Ry. Co. v. Maddox, 140 Fla. 110, 191 So. 775 (1939). Quieting Title 44(3)

Building restrictions may be removed as clouds on title where there has been radical change in character of neighborhood, or mutual disregard of restrictions. Osius v. Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862 (1933). Quieting Title 7(1)

Equity has jurisdiction to cancel restrictive covenant in deed as cloud on title, though grounds for cancellation would constitute complete defense to enforcement. Osius v. Barton, 109 Fla. 556, 147 So. 862 (1933). Quieting Title 28
13. ---- Cancellation of land contracts, remedy

Where contract for sale of land was mutually unenforceable because purchaser was married woman and purchaser had performed no part of the agreement, vendor was entitled to have record of the contract canceled as a cloud on vendor's title. Griffing v. Griffing, 120 Fla. 913, 163 So. 141 (1935). Quieting Title 7(3)

Where original vendee abandoned land contract, and vendor elected to treat abandonment as forfeiture and terminate contract, vendor may maintain suit to cancel recorded evidence of contract between assignee and subsequent purchaser under terminated contract. Pierce & Stevenson v. Jones, 109 Fla. 517, 147 So. 842 (1933). Quieting Title 7(2)

Where assignee of vendee fails to tender money and demand deed within time designated in contract, or within reasonable time, vendor, having tendered performance to vendee which was refused, may treat contract as abandoned, entitling him to have evidence of contract removed from public records as cloud on title. Pierce & Stevenson v. Jones, 109 Fla. 517, 147 So. 842 (1933). Vendor And Purchaser 86

Married woman, who with her husband signed agreement giving option to purchase her separate property, could, after option had expired, upon tendering return of cash consideration, maintain bill for cancellation of agreement as cloud on title, notwithstanding optionee's tender of purchase price to her husband, where agreement was not proved or acknowledged by her. Keene v. Latimer, 102 Fla. 841, 136 So. 331 (1931). Quieting Title 7(3)

If after several defaults on the part of the vendee the vendor attempts to give notice but is prevented from so doing by the removal of the vendee without leaving information as to his future address, and without making any provision for carrying out the contract, the vendee will be deemed to have abandoned the contract, and the vendor may then declare and treat the contract as forfeited and terminated in accordance with its terms, and may take proper steps in equity to obtain the removal of the cloud upon his title by the cancellation of the public record of such contract. Realty Securities Corp. v. Johnson, 93 Fla. 46, 111 So. 532 (1927).

In suit in equity for cancellation of a recorded contract of sale of real estate, as a cloud upon the vendor's title, the vendor may have the contract cancelled of record and declared null and void upon returning to the purchaser all amounts paid to the vendor by virtue of the contract, less any financial damage which the vendor may be able to show he sustained by reason of the contract, and any amount of financial benefit the purchaser may hav
http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com

Author johnbsims3
Admin Male

#2 | Posted: 20 Oct 2006 07:25 
have received during his possession of the property under the contract. Taylor v. Rawlins, 86 Fla. 279, 97 So. 714 (1923). Quieting Title 14
14. ---- Personal property, remedy

Court of equity will quiet title to personalty when, under exceptional circumstances, no adequate remedy at law exists. Ellis v. Dixie Highway Special Road & Bridge Dist., 103 Fla. 795, 138 So. 374 (1931). Quieting Title 2
15. Conditions precedent

Where neither vendee nor one who claimed interest under contract for purchase of realty by virtue of having furnished vendee money paid under contract with knowledge of vendor took steps to carry out terms of contract for some 15 years thereafter, vendor could treat contract as "abandoned", entitling him to have contract cancelled as a cloud on title, without returning payments made under contract. Rosenthal v. Largo Land Co., 146 Fla. 81, 200 So. 233 (1941). Quieting Title 14; Vendor And Purchaser 86

Vendors suing to cancel contract may not retain any of sum paid in excess of damages resulting from breach. Taylor v. Rawlins, 90 Fla. 621, 106 So. 424 (1925). Quieting Title 14

Lien expressly reserved was not removable without paying or showing equity discharging the lien. Wilson v. Davis, 80 Fla. 727, 86 So. 686 (1920).
16. Title--In general

In order to maintain suit to quiet title or to remove a cloud from title against a party not in actual possession, the complainant is required only to have either a legal or equitable title. Atlantic Beach Imp. Corp. v. Hall, 143 Fla. 778, 197 So. 464 (1940). Quieting Title 10.2

One who comes into equity to get rid of an apparent legal title as a cloud upon his own title must show clearly the validity of his own title and the invalidity of the title of his opponent, and equity will not act in such a case in event of a doubtful title. Atlantic Beach Imp. Corp. v. Hall, 143 Fla. 778, 197 So. 464 (1940). Quieting Title 44(4)

A court of equity will not invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quiet title, or to remove a cloud from title, unless the complainant first shows title to be in himself. Atlantic Beach Imp. Corp. v. Hall, 143 Fla. 778, 197 So. 464 (1940). Quieting Title 10.1

Party must succeed by strength of his own title, and not by weakness of his adversary's. Norton v. Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854 (1922).

In proceedings to remove a cloud upon title, equity will not aid where the complainant's title is doubtful. Morgan v. Dunwoody, 66 Fla. 522, 63 So. 905 (1913).

To entitle a party to file a bill to remove or prevent a cloud upon the title of real estate, he must be the owner of either the legal or equitable title. Peninsular Naval Stores Co. v. Cox, 57 Fla. 505, 49 So. 191 (1909). Quieting Title 10.5

Where a party files a bill to quiet title to land or to prevent or remove a cloud, it is necessary to establish his legal title as against the claim of defendant. Stewart v. Stewart, 19 Fla. 846 (1883). Quieting Title 10.1
17. ---- Adverse possession, title

Complainant in suit to remove cloud upon title to realty or for similar relief must rest upon the strength of his own title, and not upon the lack of right in the opposing party, and must show documentary title or title by adverse possession. Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 So. 221 (1919). Quieting Title 10.1

Where no record or paper title is shown and no title in complainant by adverse possession or otherwise is made to appear, a bill for the removal of cloud should be dismissed. Hill v. Da Costa, 65 Fla. 371, 61 So. 750 (1913). Quieting Title 44(4)
18. ---- Common source, title

Where both parties to suit to quiet title claimed title to land under same former owner thereof, plaintiff was only required to deraign title to such predecessor. Laganke v. Sutter, 137 Fla. 71, 187 So. 586 (1939). Quieting Title 10.2

In suit to quiet title to property claimed only by plaintiff, plaintiff need only trace title back to common source even if plaintiff's title is contested. Protective Holding Corp. v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1936). Quieting Title 10.2

Complainant need not trace title farther than to common source. Dayton v. Patton, 80 Fla. 763, 86 So. 702 (1920).
19. ---- Mortgages, title

Holders of mortgage were not entitled to maintain action to quiet title. Empire Securities Corporation v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 380, 123 So. 767 (1929); Cook v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373, 123 So. 765 (1929).
20. ---- Tax deed, title

Defendants in suit to quiet title to lands under tax deed cannot overthrow complainant's title by pointing out weaknesses therein, but must rely on strength of their own title. Taff v. Hodge, 132 Fla. 642, 182 So. 230 (1938). Taxation 794

Tax deed, if regular, extinguishes former record title to land conveyed, so that holder of such deed cannot quiet his title against former owner. Taff v. Hodge, 132 Fla. 642, 182 So. 230 (1938). Taxation 778; Taxation 793
21. Possession--In general

One out of possession, claiming title, legal or equitable, to land, may maintain a bill against any person, not in actual possession, who claims an adverse estate or interest therein, for the purpose of determining such estate and interest, and quieting or removing clouds from title. Edwards v. Sarasota Venice Co., 1917, 246 F. 773, 159 C.C.A. 75.

In suit to cancel deeds, wherein defendant asked for affirmative relief, court had jurisdiction of the cause even if plaintiffs were not in possession. Jahn v. Purvis, 145 Fla. 354, 199 So. 340 (1940). Quieting Title 12(3)

Person claiming title to real estate, though not in possession, may sue to quiet title against any person not in actual possession claiming adverse interest. Sawyer v. Gustason, 96 Fla. 6, 118 So. 57 (1928). Quieting Title 23

On complainant's failure to allege and prove possession at time of suit, decree quieting title against tax deed was error. Zetterlund v. Stratton, 93 Fla. 1118, 113 So. 562 (1927). Quieting Title 12(1)
22. ---- Defendant in possession

Person claiming legal title to land cannot maintain bill in equity to quiet title against one in possession thereof. Sawyer v. Gustason, 96 Fla. 6, 118 So. 57 (1928). Quieting Title 23

Decree quieting title against nonresident defendant in actual possession of land through agent was not void but merely voidable. Sawyer v. Gustason, 96 Fla. 6, 118 So. 57 (1928). Quieting Title 52

Complainant in suit to remove cloud upon title must show that he is actually or constructively in possession of the land, or at least that the opposing party is not in possession. Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 So. 221 (1919). Quieting Title 12(1)

A bill to remove a cloud upon title cannot be sustained where the evidence shows that the land was at the time the bill was filed in the possession of the party complained of and claiming to hold under the deeds constituting the cloud. Haworth v. Norris, 28 Fla. 763, 10 So. 18 (1891).
23. ---- Equitable title, possession

Possession is not essential where the title is equitable. Sloan v. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53, 5 So. 603 (1889).
24. ---- Legal title, possession

The general rule is that a party whose title to land is legal in its character must have possession of the land to entitle him to equitable relief against a cloud upon his title. Graham v. Florida Land & Mortg. Co., 33 Fla. 356, 14 So. 796 (1894); Patton v. Crumpler, 29 Fla. 573, 11 So. 225 (1892); Sloan v. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53, 5 So. 603 (1889).

One who claims title to land, legal in its character, cannot maintain a bill to remove a cloud from his title against a person in possession of the land. Gamble v. Hamilton, 31 Fla. 401, 12 So. 229 (1893).

Possession by a duly authorized agent having charge of all the land and engaged in keeping off trespassers, is sufficient to sustain the equitable jurisdiction in favor of owners of legal title, who are themselves nonresidents. Sloan v. Sloan, 25 Fla. 53, 5 So. 603 (1889). Quieting Title 12(2)
25. ---- Tax deed, possession

Under quitclaim deed from former owner of land which had already reverted to state under Murphy Law, Laws 1937, c. 18296, for nonpayment of state and county taxes, grantee acquired no interest in the land, but delivery and recordation of such deed and assertion by grantee of a claim to the property constituted a cloud upon title of purchaser from trustees of Internal Improvement Fund for the removal of which he could maintain a bill in equity, though not in actual possession, where land was wild and unoccupied and not in possession of former owner's grantee. June Sand Co. v. Devon Corp., 156 Fla. 519, 23 So.2d 621 (1945). Deeds 8; Taxation 793

A bill to remove a tax deed as a cloud upon a title is demurrable when it is not alleged that the complainant was in possession of the land at the time of filing the bill or that the land was wild, unimproved and unoccupied. Richards v. Morris, 39 Fla. 205, 22 So. 650 (1897). Quieting Title 35(3)
26. ---- Wild and unoccupied land, possession

Where the complainant's title to real estate is a legal one, he must be in possession in order to maintain a suit in equity to remove a cloud from such title, unless the land is wild, unimproved and so unoccupied as to destroy the constructive possession that follows the legal title. Morgan v. Dunwoody, 66 Fla. 522, 63 So. 905 (1914); Clem v. Meserole, 44 Fla. 191, 32 So. 783 (1902).

Where a complainant has a legal title to lands that are wild, unimproved and unoccupied, he may invoke the aid of chancery to remove a cloud upon his title, although he has no other constructive possession resulting from legal ownership. Woodford v. Alexander, 35 Fla. 333, 17 So. 658 (1895); Graham v. Florida Land & Mortg. Co., 33 Fla. 356, 14 So. 796 (1894).

The settled rule is, that in bills to remove clouds from the title to real estate, it must be shown that the complainant was in possession of the land when the bill was filed, or that the land was wild and unoccupied. Watson v. Holliday, 37 Fla. 488, 19 So. 640 (1896). Quieting Title 35(3)

Where the title of a party to land is legal in its nature, he must be in possession before he can claim the aid of a court of equity to remove a cloud from his title, unless the land is wild, unimproved or unoccupied. Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391, 17 So. 635 (1895).

It is essential that a complainant should be in possession in order to maintain a bill to remove a cloud upon the title to real estate when not wild or uncultivated. Winn v. Strickland, 34 Fla. 610, 16 So. 606 (1894).
27. ---- Wrongful possession

Wrongful possession is not such "possession" as owner of land must have in order to maintain a bill to remove cloud on title. Jahn v. Purvis, 145 Fla. 354, 199 So. 340 (1940). Quieting Title 12(7)

Wrongful, forcible possession is not such possession as the owner must have in order to maintain a bill to remove a cloud upon title. Hughey v. Winborne, 44 Fla. 601, 33 So. 249 (1902). Quieting Title 12(9)
28. Riparian rights

Issues were presented as to whether property claimed by plaintiff was of such substance or character as to render it susceptible of addition by accretion and as to whether any increase of riparian land became an addition to sovereign property of state or became an addition to land owned by plaintiff, precluding summary judgment in suit to quiet claim title to property as originally surveyed together with large abutting area between government traverse on boundary of plaintiff's undisputed property and line of mean low water on edge of bay. Trustees of Internal Imp. Fund of State v. Sutton, App. 3 Dist., 206 So.2d 272 (1968). Equity 415
29. Defenses--In general

Equitable defenses may be interposed in actions in ejectment, but only negative defenses may be made on the law side, and no affirmative relief can be obtained. Commodores Point Terminal Co. v. Hudnall, S.D.Fla.1922, 283 F. 150. Ejectment 116

Where there was meritorious defense, i.e., forgery, and circumstances created reasonable doubt as to excusable neglect, doubt should be resolved in favor of allowing trial on merits, and denial of motion to vacate default judgment entered against defendant in action to quiet title to certain real estate was accordingly reversed. Harrison v. Harris, App. 1 Dist., 448 So.2d 25 (1984). Judgment 143(3)

Paragraph in answer to bill by bishop as corporation sole to protect from execution and to remove cloud from title to lands held in corporate capacity against one holding judgment allegedly rendered against bishop personally, stated a defense. Willard v. Barry, 113 Fla. 402, 152 So. 411 (1933). Judgment 460(1)

Where, in a suit to cancel cloud on title, complainant's title depends on a sheriff's deed, payment of the judgment prior to the levy of execution is relevant defensive matter. Wofford v. Dykes, 67 Fla. 118, 64 So. 451 (1914). Quieting Title 15
30. ---- Laches, defenses

Suit to quiet title filed in 1937 involving title to realty vested in plaintiffs' grantor at time of his death and conveyed by his heirs in 1918 was not barred by laches, where record failed to show any conflict of interest concerning land involved other than ambiguity appearing in two deeds from plaintiffs' grantor arising from mistake in description of property. Brooks v. Pryor, 138 Fla. 498, 189 So. 675 (1939). Quieting Title 29

Remainderman may at any reasonable time before or after death of life tenant sue to quiet title. Commercial Bldg. Co. v. Parslow, 93 Fla. 143, 112 So. 378 (1927). Remainders 17(2)

Laches may bar suit to remove cloud. Norton v. Jones, 83 Fla. 81, 90 So. 854 (1922).

Where title to wild, unoccupied lands is shown to be in complainants in suit to quiet title, and defendants have acquired no title by adverse possession, etc., complainants are not barred by laches because of failure to pay taxes when defendants under a defective deed paid such taxes and took timber, etc. Sanborn v. South Florida Naval Stores Co., 75 Fla. 145, 78 So. 428 (1918). Quieting Title 29
31. Parties--In general

In suit to quiet title predicated on error in description in various deeds, final decree could be entered without joinder of all parties connected with conveyances as against contention that suit was to reform deed because of mistake in description of lands conveyed requiring joinder of all parties interested in subject-matter. Brooks v. Pryor, 138 Fla. 498, 189 So. 675 (1939). Quieting Title 30(3)

Party with no interest in land when bill to quiet title is filed and final decree is recorded cannot intervene to defend. Minge v. Davison, 94 Fla. 1197, 115 So. 510 (1928). Quieting Title 30(1)

Where bill is brought to cancel deeds conveying real estate as cloud on the title, all the warrantors whose deeds are sought to be cancelled should be made parties. Gibson v. Tuttle, 53 Fla. 979, 43 So. 310 (1907). Quieting Title 30(2)
32. ---- Necessary parties

Owners of royalty right were not indispensable parties to quiet title action affecting property to which right attached where, even though portion of mineral interest was invalidated, they retained no right to enter upon land to develop or produce minerals as they had assigned the working interest to another party who assumed obligation to pay royalty and where judgment fashioned by trial court did not affect their rights since it permitted them to continue to receive their full royalty interest. Amerada Hess Corp. v. Morgan, App. 1 Dist., 426 So.2d 1122 (1983), petition for review denied 436 So.2d 97. Quieting Title 30(3)

Grantee, compelled to retake property from his grantee, was necessary party to suit by grantor's heirs against remote grantee. Fain v. Adams, 97 Fla. 517, 121 So. 562 (1929). Quieting Title 30(3)

A bill to cancel warranty deed is fatally defective if it fails to make as party the warrantor in the deed. Reid v. Grantham, 65 Fla. 500, 62 So. 480 (1913). Quieting Title 30(3)

In a suit for the removal of cloud from title, grantors without warranty who have parted with whatever claim to the land in question they may have had, are not necessary parties defendant. West Coast Lumber Co. v. Griffin, 54 Fla. 621, 45 So. 514 (1907). Quieting Title 30(3)

In a proceeding to remove a cloud from the title and to have the conveyance cancelled as fraudulent, the parties executing such conveyance are necessary parties. Florida Land Rock Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 50 Fla. 501, 50 Fla. 516, 39 So. 392 (1905). Quieting Title 30(3)

Where a mortgage debt has been paid, and the mortgage afterwards assigned, and then foreclosed by the assignee without making the holder of the legal title a party to the foreclosure, in a suit by the latter to set aside the decree, and the deed executed under it as a cloud upon his title, the mortgagees are not necessary parties. Matheson v. Thompson, 20 Fla. 790 (1884). Quieting Title 30(3)
33. ---- Proper parties

Purchaser pendente lite was properly permitted to intervene in suit to quiet title notwithstanding notice of lis pendens had been filed at time suit to quiet title was instituted, where purchaser asserted superior title to complainant. Nelson Bullock Co. v. South Down Development Co., 132 Fla. 495, 181 So. 365 (1938). Quieting Title 30(1)

A receiver of the estate of the decedent who has no title to the land is not a proper party plaintiff in suit to remove a cloud. Gibson v. Tuttle, 53 Fla. 979, 43 So. 310 (1907). Quieting Title 30(2)
34. Complaint--In general

To warrant the removal of restrictive covenants from land, the bill must allege, and the evidence must prove, such a changed state of circumstances as will frustrate or bring to naught the effect of the covenants, and that such change was not brought about by the fault of those who seek to have restrictions removed. Dade County v. Thompson, 146 Fla. 66, 200 So. 212 (1941). Quieting Title 43

Bill by bishop as corporation sole to protect from execution and to remove cloud from title to lands held in corporate capacity against one holding judgment allegedly rendered against bishop personally, was not demurrable. Willard v. Barry, 113 Fla. 402, 152 So. 411 (1933). Judgment 460(1)

Allegations of bill by holder in due course of road district bonds, seeking to quiet title to bonds, to require trustees to account, to recover interest, and to enjoin trustees from misapplication of trust moneys, stated cause of action. Ellis v. Dixie Highway Special Road & Bridge Dist., 103 Fla. 795, 138 So. 374 (1931). Quieting Title 34(1)

Bill to remove cloud upon title, without alleging defendant asserted claim to property or threat to sue therefor, was insufficient as bill quia timet. Largo Land Co. v. Skipper, 98 Fla. 541, 123 So. 915 (1929). Quieting Title 34(5)

Complainant must show validity of his own title and invalidity of that of opposing party. Dayton v. Patton, 80 Fla. 763, 86 So. 702 (1920).

Where a bill is filed to remove a cloud from the title to wild and unimproved land, it is essential that it should be alleged in the bill and proved, that the lands are wild and unimproved. Graham v. Florida Land & Mortg. Co., 33 Fla. 356, 14 So. 796 (1894).
35. ---- Allegations of possession, complaint

The assignee of land contract could not maintain suit to establish ownership of land and to oust from possession thereof defendant to which the vendor had conveyed the land, where the complaint in effect merely alleged an equitable interest in the land in the assignee, and it was not shown by the complaint what rights the assignee claimed under the land contract, or whether the vendor retained enforceable lien on the land as security with right to enforce payment in equity by strict foreclosure. Atlantic Beach Imp. Corp. v. Hall, 143 Fla. 778, 197 So. 464 (1940). Quieting Title 35(2)

When from the bill it appears that the complainant is in the exclusive possession of the land from the title to which the cloud is sought to be removed, the bill will be deemed sufficient so far as the allegation of possession is concerned. Johnson v. Baker, 73 Fla. 6, 74 So. 210 (1917). Quieting Title 34(1)

The bill to cancel warranty deed is fatally defective if it fails to allege possession or that the land is wild and unoccupied. Reid v. Grantham, 65 Fla. 500, 62 So. 480 (1913). Quieting Title 30(3)

An allegation in a bill to remove a cloud that complainant "now owns and holds" such la
http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com

Author johnbsims3
Admin Male

#3 | Posted: 20 Oct 2006 07:26 
lands, which are also alleged to be "wild and unoccupied, and not in the actual possession of any person," is sufficient. Florida **** v. Stevens, 61 Fla. 598, 55 So. 981 (1911). Quieting Title 35(3)

A bill to remove a cloud on title must allege that the complainant is not only the owner, but that he is in possession of the land, or that it is wild and unoccupied. Simmons v. Carlton, 44 Fla. 719, 33 So. 408 (1902). Quieting Title 35(3)
36. ---- Allegations of title, complaint

Bill to remove cloud from title is demurrable, if facts constituting title are set out and show complainant has no title. Martin v. Busch, 93 Fla. 535, 112 So. 274 (1927). Quieting Title 10.1

In proceedings to remove a cloud upon title, complainant must allege in his bill with clearness and accuracy the validity of his own title, and while an allegation in general terms may be sufficient, yet, if he supplements such general allegations with specific allegations undertaking to deraign his title, and thereby fails to clearly and certainly show its validity, the showing of his title is to be deemed insufficient. American Trust Co. v. Fennell, 78 Fla. 535, 83 So. 386 (1919). Quieting Title 35(2)

In suits for the removal of clouds from title, where, in addition to an allegation of ownership in fee, the facts which constitute title of whatsoever nature are also set out and show title not to be in the complainant, a demurrer to the bill will lie. Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 So. 221 (1919). Quieting Title 41

In suits to remove clouds from title an allegation in the bill that complainant is owner in fee of lands in question, or in actual possession thereof, or that the lands are wild, unimproved, or unoccupied is sufficient, without detailing facts showing such ownership, as ownership is the ultimate fact, and the others are mere evidentiary facts. Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 So. 221 (1919). Quieting Title 35(2)

Complainants in suits to remove clouds upon title to realty or for similar relief must show with clearness, accuracy, and certainty the validity of their own title. Brickell v. Trammell, 77 Fla. 544, 82 So. 221 (1919). Quieting Title 35(2)

Where perfect title is set out in a bill to quiet title, it is unnecessary to allege the right of immediate possession. Downing v. Carlton, 76 Fla. 490, 80 So. 57 (1918). Quieting Title 35(3)

"That the complainant is the owner in fee simple" is a sufficient allegation as to his title. Welborn v. Pierce, 75 Fla. 667, 78 So. 929 (1918). Quieting Title 35(2)

In a bill for the removal of cloud on complainant's title, where he undertakes to set out his title, but does it defectively, the defects thus appearing in the bill are not cured by general allegations of ownership. Cornwell v. Williford, 73 Fla. 305, 73 So. 795 (1917). Quieting Title 35(2)

In a suit to quiet title, allegations that complainant has the legal title, that the land is unimproved and unoccupied, that defendant's claim of title is illegal for stated reasons, states a right of action. Law v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 487, 58 So. 844 (1912). Quieting Title 35(3)

In a bill to remove cloud from title, if in addition to an allegation of ownership in fee, the facts which constitute the title are also set out, and such facts show title not to be in the complainant, a demurrer to the bill will lie. West Coast Lumber Co. v. Griffin, 54 Fla. 621, 45 So. 514 (1907). Quieting Title 35(2)

In suits for removal of clouds from title, an allegation in the bill that complainant is owner in fee of the land in question, and in the actual possession thereof, or that the lands are wild, unimproved or unoccupied, is sufficient, without setting out the fact showing such ownership. West Coast Lumber Co. v. Griffin, 54 Fla. 621, 45 So. 514 (1907). Quieting Title 35(2)
37. ---- Amendment, complaint

In suit to quiet title, bill of which was defective under the statute for failure to allege that plaintiff was in possession of property was not dismissible on that ground but was subject to amendment. Conway v. Wilson, 132 Fla. 404, 181 So. 385 (1938). Quieting Title 45

In suit to quiet title and to restrain trespass, permitting filing amended bill was not abuse of trial court's discretion. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Feagin, 93 Fla. 1015, 113 So. 89 (1927). Injunction 121; Quieting Title 42
38. ---- Cloud set out in detail, complaint

Bill of complaint to quiet title or remove clouds on title must contain sufficient allegations to show cause of action. Bill of complaint to quiet title or remove clouds on title must not only show title in complainant, but must also show cloud exists. In bill of complaint to quiet title or remove cloud on title, not only writing or matter constituting alleged cloud must be shown but facts must be alleged giving claim apparent validity as well as those showing its invalidity. Brecht v. Bur-Ne Co., 91 Fla. 345, 108 So. 173 (1926).

If complainant in suit to remove a cloud upon title does not know nature of alleged interests of defendants and fails to ascertain that after diligent effort, he should allege that their interests were unknown and his effort to ascertain such interest, and pray for a discovery thereof. Welborn v. Pierce, 75 Fla. 667, 78 So. 929 (1918). Pretrial Procedure 28

Complainant in a suit to remove a cloud upon title, in addition to alleging his ownership in fee simple, should by proper allegation describe interests of respondents and how they constitute cloud upon his title. Welborn v. Pierce, 75 Fla. 667, 78 So. 929 (1918). Quieting Title 34(5)

Bill of complaint to remove cloud from title should so describe alleged cloud and show its invalidity as to advise unknown defendants of nature of the case and the court as to what decree to render if the bill is true. Welborn v. Pierce, 75 Fla. 667, 78 So. 929 (1918). Quieting Title 34(5)
39. ---- Tax deed, complaint

Complainant claiming under drainage tax deed against alleged cloud thereon by reason of former record title and parties holding lien thereon were not entitled to maintain suit to quiet title under statute where there was no allegation in bill that there had been any attempt on part of holders of former record title or those claiming liens or interest under them to assert any claim of title to property subsequent to issuance of drainage tax deed. Empire Securities Corporation v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 380, 123 So. 767 (1929); Cook v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373, 123 So. 765 (1929).

Where a bill to quiet title alleges that a tax deed is of record and, though void, casts a cloud on the title of complainant, it is sufficient to show that respondent has a title that is a cloud on complainant's title, and it need not be alleged that the title is fair on its face. Downing v. Carlton, 76 Fla. 490, 80 So. 57 (1918). Quieting Title 34(5)
40. Answer

In a suit to quiet title, portions of the answer denying allegation that the land is wild and not in possession of any one, and averring that defendants were in possession, should not be stricken for impertinence. Law v. Taylor, 63 Fla. 487, 58 So. 844 (1912). Quieting Title 37(1)
41. Counterclaim

Where claim of counterclaimants in quiet title action was derived from same deed on which claimant's claim was based, they were required to establish that they did, in fact, acquire title from the common source. Pasekoff v. Kaufman, App. 3 Dist., 392 So.2d 971 (1981). Quieting Title 10.2

In suit to remove cloud on title caused by tax certificate erroneously describing lots 47 to 77, inclusive, as being in block 1 of a certain addition instead of in block 2, defendant's answer and counterclaim for foreclosure of tax lien alleging that reference to the block was superfluous because in subdivision where were no lots 47 to 77 in block 1 or in any other block save block numbered 2, was improperly stricken, where a reference to the plat would have revealed the error and property owners could not have been misled. Williams v. Williams, 153 Fla. 578, 15 So.2d 298 (1943). Pleading 354

Grantee of land from grantor having outstanding against her void judgment may maintain bill in equity to cancel judgment as cloud upon title to land, and grantor may maintain counterclaim to have void judgment set aside. Protective Holding Corp. v. Cornwall Co., 127 Fla. 252, 173 So. 804 (1936). Quieting Title 39

In suit to quiet tax title, defendant who seeks to have title quieted as against complainant must establish such grounds for relief as are required of complainant. Day v. Benesh, 104 Fla. 58, 139 So. 448 (1932). Quieting Title 44(1)
42. Evidence--In general

He who comes into equity to get rid of a legal title as a cloud upon his own must show clearly the validity of his own title and the invalidity of his opponent's. Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Lancaster, 70 Fla. 200, 69 So. 720 (1915); Morgan v. Dunwoody, 66 Fla. 522, 63 So. 905 (1914); Gasque v. Ball, 65 Fla. 383, 62 So. 215 (1913); Hill v. DaCosta, 65 Fla. 371, 61 So. 750 (1913); Jarrell v. McRainey, 65 Fla. 141, 61 So. 240 (1913); Houston v. McKinney, 54 Fla. 600, 45 So. 480 (1908); Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391, 17 So. 635 (1895).

In suit by equitable title holder to invalidate mortgage and to quiet title, evidence that holder was told by third party that, if he purchased property in question, he would buy lawsuit, would not support contention that holder had actual knowledge of unrecorded mortgage at time of purchase, where it appeared that third party had no knowledge of unrecorded mortgage and had reference to two recorded mortgages and tax liens which were then in litigation. Pierson v. Bill, 138 Fla. 104, 189 So. 679 (1939). Quieting Title 44(3)

In suit to quiet title to wild, unoccupied land, where complainants show a legal title and defendants do not show a superior title by adverse possession or otherwise, it is error to decree that title is in defendants. Sanborn v. South Florida Naval Stores Co., 75 Fla. 145, 78 So. 428 (1918). Quieting Title 44(4)
43. ---- Admissibility of evidence

In quiet title action, parol evidence precluded parties from introducing evidence concerning vendor's intentions when he conveyed lots to opposing parties. Joseph v. Duran, App. 1 Dist., 436 So.2d 316 (1983). Evidence 461(2)

It was competent to make persons purchasing lands at bankruptcy sale parties defendant in suit to quiet title thereto under tax deed executed before recording of bankruptcy trustee's deed, and evidence that bankrupt, who held record title, had no title to lands was admissible. Taff v. Hodge, 132 Fla. 642, 182 So. 230 (1938). Taxation 806; Taxation 810(2)

"Clear the title, cure the title, straighten out the title or remove cloud from title, and other such uses have a well-understood meaning as applied to the law of real estate. They have reference to all such acts, steps, or proceedings as are necessary to render the title good and marketable, including the opinion of counsel that this has been done. Since this is the well-understood general meaning of 'straighten out' the title, we hold that parol evidence was not admissible to prove that the parties to the instant contract intended any less than that; there being nothing in the contract to indicate such an intention." Johnston v. Cox, 114 Fla. 243, 154 So. 206 (1934).
44. ---- Sufficiency of evidence

Evidence in action to quiet title to beach property supported jury's finding of dedication of property to city and acceptance by city. Hollywood, Inc. v. Zinkil, App. 4 Dist., 403 So.2d 528 (1981). Dedication 44

Evidence of description of land contained in deed was sufficient to support finding that plaintiffs who sued to quiet title were owners of land in dispute. Mogee v. Haller, App. 1 Dist., 222 So.2d 468 (1969). Quieting Title 44(4)

Complainant's deraignment of title in suit to remove cloud from title was insufficient to support decree for complainant. Butler v. De Soto Nat. Bank of Arcadia, 102 Fla. 464, 135 So. 897 (1931). Quieting Title 44(4)

Evidence of admissions by grantee that land had been conveyed to secure loan which had been paid supported decree for grantor's creditors suing to remove cloud from title. Robinson v. Pepper, 94 Fla. 1184, 116 So. 4 (1928). Quieting Title 44(4)

In suit to cancel instruments as cloud on title, evidence of deed to plaintiff from trustees of internal improvement fund sustains decree for plaintiff. Morgan v. Dunwoody, 71 Fla. 125, 70 So. 1005 (1916). Quieting Title 44(4)

A deed executed in 1873 by the commissioner of land and immigration under the seal of the State land department, and actually recorded, is sufficient evidence of title to support a suit to quiet title. Hannay v. Sanchez, 68 Fla. 167, 66 So. 997 (1914).
45. Relief awarded--In general

In a suit to quiet title, the court may require an accounting for damages to the land. Gasque v. Ball, 65 Fla. 383, 62 So. 215 (1913).

The complainant who fails to show either documentary title or adverse possession for a period sufficiently long to give title, is not entitled to relief. Baltzell v. McKinnon, 57 Fla. 355, 49 So. 546 (1909). Quieting Title 10.1
46. ---- Injunctive relief

In a suit to set aside or cancel an alleged cloud upon title to real estate, a court of equity will not join a proceeding for unlawful detainer, brought previous to the filing of the bill for such injunction; the question of title was not involved in an action for unlawful detainer, in view of § 82.05. Knott v. Smith, 79 Fla. 628, 84 So. 660 (1920). Quieting Title 50

Where it is sought to quiet title or to remove a cloud from title to real estate, which is an equity ground independent of statute, the court has authority to give such injunctive relief as might be shown to be proper. Cameron v. Rogers, 70 Fla. 300, 70 So. 389 (1915).
47. Summary judgment

In action to quiet title to parcel of real property, genuine issue of material fact was raised as to claim of defendant corporation to title of real property in interest, thereby precluding summary judgment. Gedman Corp. v. Weitzman, App. 4 Dist., 450 So.2d 919 (1984). Judgment 181(15.1)

In action to quiet title in land, substantial factual issues as to existence and location of fences on property, improvements made on land, exercise of control over land, and payment of taxes on property precluded summary judgment. St. Clair v. Smith, App. 2 Dist., 445 So.2d 1113 (1984). Judgment 181(15.1)
48. Review

Judgment reached district court of appeal clothed with presumption of correctness, and findings of trial court recited in the judgment, which quieted title to land in plaintiffs, possessed quality of jury verdict. Haller v. Santona Land Corp., App. 1 Dist., 275 So.2d 591 (1973). Appeal And Error 934(1); Appeal And Error 1008.1(2)

Current through Chapter 352 and H.J.R. No. 1723, H.J.R. 1177 and S.J.R. No.
2144 (End) of the 2005 First Regular Session of the Nineteenth Legislature
http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com

Mortgage and Real Estate Industry Florida Homestead Services - Florida Homestead Exemption Act Forum / Mortgage and Real Estate Industry /
Real estate; removing clouds
Top
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message
 

 ?
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
 
  Powered by Forum Software miniBB®