THE CITY OF PENSACOLA, APPELLANT,
v.
CAPITAL REALTY HOLDING COMPANY, 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.
The City of Pensacola appeals a trial court order awarding ownership of an accreted strip of land on Pensacola Bay to Capital Realty Holding Company. The court reverses, holding that the City's record title from an 1903 state conveyance prevails over Capital's claim based on the common law doctrine of accretion.
The City's record title from the 1903 conveyance prevails over Capital's claim under the doctrine of accretion. The court found insufficient evidence that the land in question was under water at the time the City acquired its title or that accretion occurred after the City's acquisition.
[1] The common law doctrine of accretion, which grants riparian landowners title to adjacent land formed by natural deposits, does not defeat record title when the record tit…
[2] A party claiming title to accreted land must present evidence that the land formed after the opposing party acquired record title.
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“the owner of property on a waterway acquires title to adjacent land formed in the waterway by natural accretion”
Establishes the common law doctrine of accretion that Capital relied upon
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe property in question was formed by natural accretion over time as sand was deposited by Pensacola Bay. The City held record title through a 1903 l…
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.
MILLS, Chief Judge.
The City of Pensacola appeals an order of the trial court which found that Capital Realty Holding Company is the owner of a strip of land on Pensacola Bay. We reverse.
The parties stipulated that the property in question was formed by accretion, built up through the years with sand deposited by the natural forces of Pensacola Bay. In a dispute collateral to an eminent domain action, the City claimed title to the land as record title holder by virtue of a 1903 conveyance from the State of Florida. Capital claimed title through the common law doctrine of accretion, which states that the owner of property on a waterway acquires title to adjacent land formed in the waterway by natural accretion. In its order, the trial court found that because Capital owned the property adjacent to the accretion, Capital was entitled to ownership of the accretion.
Capital argues that at the time of the 1903 deed to the City, the land in question lay under water. However, this is not substantiated by the record. The disputed property was one of numerous small parcels of land conveyed to the City by legislative act. The deed contained an exhaustive list of blocks and lots including the disputed property, all described in general terms as “land covered and not covered by water.” The land in question was not specifically described as being covered or not covered by water. Although the parties stipulated the land formed through accretion, the rec-
Therefore, we find insufficient evidence to support Capital’s claim that the doctrine of accretions defeats the City’s record title. Cases cited by Capital are inapplicable because they all contain evidence that the parties’ lands bordered on water. There is no such evidence here. ord does not indicate the land formed after the City acquired its title. We are confronted by a record which demonstrates that the land was formed, at some point, by accretion and that title to the land is held by the City of Pensacola.
Accordingly, the order below is reversed and this case remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
McCORD and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The City OF Pensacola v. Cap. Realty Holding Co., Inc., 417 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…land owner, was entitled to the land. The following points on appeal are presented for our consideration: 1. Whether the trial court erred in failing to follow the mandate of this court in City of Pensacola v. Capital Realty Holding Company, Inc., 388 So. 2d 642 (1st DCA 1981). 2. Whether the trial court misapplied the common law doctrine of natural accretions. 3. Whether the trial court erred by determining that all of the accreted land was owned by Capital Realty. 4. Whether the trial court erred by de…