J. GRADY HOLLAND ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Landowners appealed a circuit court order dismissing their claim that a 1969 warranty deed conveying property to the State for road right-of-way purposes did not include subsurface oil and gas rights. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the statutory form deed conveyed fee simple title and the appellants' attack on the deed's validity was improper.
The court held that the statutory form deed unambiguously conveyed fee simple title absent words of limitation or expressions of contrary intention, that references to road purposes did not render the deed ambiguous, and that the deed could not be recharacterized as a mortgage or impeached on the grounds that the State lacked necessity for subsurface rights.
[1] A statutory form warranty deed, in the absence of words of limitation or contrary intention, conveys fee simple title.
[2] References to road right of way purposes in a deed do not render ambiguous the extent of the estate conveyed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 deed in statutory form operated to convey the fee simple title in the absence of words of limitation or other expressions of a contrary intention in the instrument.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that statutory form deeds convey fee simple title unless limited by express language.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1969, the appellants (grantors) executed a statutory form warranty deed conveying a strip of Santa Rosa County land to the State of Florida. The de…
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 Deed As Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
The grantors of a 1969 warranty deed in the form prescribed by Section 689.02, Florida Statutes (1969), (1979), conveying a strip
of Santa Rosa County land to the State, appeal from a circuit court order dismissing with prejudice their second amended complaint and their claim against the State that the deed conveyed no rights to subsurface oil and gas. On this record we sustain the deed against appellants’ varied attack, and we therefore affirm.
Appellants first urge that the exhibited deed is ambiguous on its face concerning the extent of the estate conveyed, so permitting clarification by parol evidence. The deed in statutory form operated to convey the fee simple title in the absence of words of limitation or other expressions of a contrary intention in the instrument. Section 689.10, Florida Statutes (1969), (1979); Bronstein v. Bronstein, 83 So. 2d 699 (Fla.1955). The reference in a corner of the deed to State Road S-178 and other notations showing that the acquisition was for road right of way purposes do not render the deed ambiguous on the issue of whether the estate conveyed was an easement or the fee simple title. Robb v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 117 So. 2d 534 (Fla.2d DCA 1960).
Secondly, we cannot agree with appellants that this deed may be likened to one absolute on its face but given for security, therefore as a mortgage. In such a case parol evidence is received to show connected elements of a single transaction, or to show “the object of the parties in executing and receiving” the deed as security rather than as an absolute conveyance. E, g., First Nat’l Bank v. Ashmead, 23 Fla. 379, 385, 2 So. 657, 659 (1887). Here appellants propose improperly to impeach “the language of which the instrument is the repository.” Ibid. That language expresses the estate conveyed. Section 689.10.
Finally, because the State had power to buy and appellants had power to sell (for a negotiated price) and by warranty deed to convey fee simple title to land deemed necessary for road right of way purposes, Section 337.25, we decline to impeach the parties’ 1969 transaction, now that oil has been found, upon a theory that the State could not have shown a necessity for acquisition of subsurface rights if that had appropriately been challenged in eminent domain proceedings. Article X, Section 6, Florida Constitution; Canal Authority v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla.1970). The time for appellants to have declined voluntary relinquishment of subsurface mineral rights was when the fee simple sale was bargained and consummated, averting condemnation proceedings in which appellants might have challenged the public necessity for the taking.
Appellants’ second amended complaint contains no allegations of fraud, overreaching, or mutual mistake which may conceivably have justified reforming or cancelling the deed, which was not prayed for, and there is no contention on this appeal that appellants were improperly denied further leave to amend. The order appealed is therefore
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Clearwater v. Bayesplanade.com, LLC., 251 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
Rogers v. The United States, 184 So. 3d 1087 (Fla. 2015)…Fed.Cl. 223, 233 (Fed.Cl.2013) (citing Lowers v. United States, 663 N.W. 2d 408, 410 (Iowa 2003), for its refusal to “[d]etermin[e] the nature of the interest conveyed by reference to the intended use by the grantee,”). [*1100] In Holland v. State, 388 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), a grantor sold land to the State for a negotiated price for a highway right of way, conveying fee simple title by warranty deed in statutory form. The court held that the grantor could not later claim that the State did not obta…
Authorities Cited
- The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Miller, 243 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1970)
- The First Nat'l Bank of Fla. v. Ashmead, 23 Fla. 379 (Fla. 1887)
- Bronstein v. Bronstein, 83 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1955)
- W. Orm Robb for the Lakeland Improvement Co. v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 117 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)