JULIUS HOPE, JR.; PEGGY L. GOODWINE, LINDA G. HARRIS, AND SHIRLEY GRAHAM, AS DISTRIBUTEES OF THE ESTATE OF WILSON GRAHAM AND SUBSTITUTED PARTIES, APPELLANTS,
v.
EARTHA HOPE, ELIJAH HOPE, FRANCES HOPE, ALPHONZO RICHARDS, NATHANIEL RICHARDS, ANNIE PEARL MILLER, AND BENJAMIN HOPE, APPELLEES
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.
Appellants, as co-tenants, challenged a summary judgment that applied Florida's Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) to extinguish their interests when a co-tenant obtained a tax deed. The court affirmed, holding that MRTA's clear language applies to cut off co-tenant interests when proper notice is not timely filed under section 712.05.
The Marketable Record Title Act applies to cut off the rights of a co-tenant by a tax deed obtained by another co-tenant if timely notice is not filed pursuant to section 712.05, regardless of equitable principles protecting co-tenants.
[1] The Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) may extinguish a co-tenant's interest in land, even where a tax deed has been granted to another co-tenant, provided timely notice…
[2] The purpose of the Marketable Record Title Act is to allow persons to rely upon marketable record title.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“MRTA's language is clear and broad, and its purpose is to allow persons to rely upon marketable record title as defined in section 712.02.”
Establishes the court's rationale for applying MRTA despite equitable principles protecting co-tenants
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants and appellees were co-tenants in the property at issue. One co-tenant obtained a tax deed on the property. The appellants sued seeking …
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 Marketable Record Title Act cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellants’ and appellees’ predecessors in title were co-tenants in the land at issue. The appellants sued the appellees, seeking various relief, including partition. The appellees answered, raised several affirmative defenses, and counterclaimed to quiet title. The parties agreed that the only issue for the trial court’s determination was whether the marketable record title act (MRTA)1 applies where a tax deed has been granted a co-tenant and the rights of third parties are not involved. Relying upon Allen v. St. Petersburg Bank & Trust Co., 383 So. 2d 1171 (Fla.2d DCA 1980), the trial court found that MRTA did cut off the rights of such co-tenant, and granted a summary judgment in favor of the appel-lees.
The appellants argue that under equitable principles, a co-tenant cannot gain sole title to a co-tenancy by paying the taxes and obtaining a tax title. See, e.g., Johnson v. Johnson, 179 So. 2d 112 (Fla.2d DCA 1965); Albury v. Gordon, 164 So. 2d 549 (Fla.3d DCA 1964). Recognizing this equitable doctrine, the Allen court held that a co-tenant’s interest survives the issuance of a tax deed to a co-tenant, but that MRTA could extinguish that interest if timely notice was not filed pursuant to section 712.-05. 383 So. 2d at 1171-72. The appellants’ attempts to distinguish Allen are unavailing. MRTA’s language is clear and broad, and its purpose is to allow persons to rely upon marketable record title as defined in section 712.02. We therefore apply the reasoning of Allen to the circumstances of this case. See also I.T.T. Rayonier, Inc. v. Wadsworth, 346 So. 2d 1004 (Fla.1977).
The summary judgment in favor of the appellees is
AFFIRMED.
. Ch. 712, Fla.Stat. (1979).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maude Travick v. Parker, 436 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…he court held that a co-tenant’s interest survives the issuance of a tax deed to a co-tenant. However, the Allen court also held that MRTA could extinguish such an interest if timely notice was not filed pursuant to section 712.052. In Hope v. Hope, 410 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), this court applied the reasoning in Allen in affirming the trial court’s judgment that MRTA does apply where a tax deed has been granted to a co-tenant and the rights of third parties are not involved. The application of the re…
-
Harrell v. Doyle Alva Wester, 853 F.2d 828 (11th Cir. 1988)…e be cured to the exclusion of appellants’ interest. Appellants could have maintained their interest by filing the notice prescribed by Section 712.05 ... within the thirty year period. Id. at 1172 (citation and footnote omitted). In Hope v. Hope, 410 So. 2d 212 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982), the court was faced with a fact situation virtually identical to that in Allen. The court rejected the appellants’ suggestion that because the rights of third parties were not involved the rule set forth in Allen should not a…
Authorities Cited
- ITT Rayonier v. Wadsworth, 346 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 1977)
- Albury v. Gordon, 164 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Hiram B. Johnson v. Johnson, 179 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Hicks Sumner Allen and Edna Sumner Childs v. ST. Petersburg Bank & Tr. Co., 383 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)