JAMES M. JOSEPH AND CLARA M. JOSEPH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
CARMEN M. DURAN AND KENYA M. HADDEN, 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.
Joseph and his wife appealed a final judgment quieting title to the easterly one-half of an abandoned alley in favor of Duran and Hadden. The court held that when the Morrows conveyed lots abutting the alley to the appellees, they conveyed title to the center line of the alley by operation of law, regardless of the alley's prior vacation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
When an owner conveys lots abutting an alley, title to the center line of the alley passes by operation of law, even if the alley has been vacated and is not mentioned in the deed. Therefore, the Morrows' 1979 conveyance to appellees conveyed title to the center line of the alley, making the quit claim deed from the Morrows to appellants a cloud on appellees' title.
[1] When a parcel of land abuts a street or alley, conveyance of the parcel by lot and block number includes title to the center line of the abutting street or alley, even if…
[2] The parole evidence rule precludes the introduction of extrinsic evidence to contradict or vary the terms of a written deed.
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“When the Morrows conveyed lots 19 through 23 to appellees, they conveyed not only title to the lots described in the deed, but also title to the center line of the alley abutting the lots.”
Establishes the core holding that title to abutting alleys passes by operation of law upon conveyance of lots
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Morrows owned lots 19-23 in Block 6 of New Riverside subdivision in Jacksonville, which abutted a ten-foot alley to the west. In March 1979, Jacks…
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
LARRY G. SMITH, Judge.
Appellants appeal a final judgment quieting title to the easterly one-half of an alley in appellees. The ten foot alley runs north and south separating appellants’ lot from those of appellees, the west boundary of appellees’ lots facing the east boundary of the alley, and the east boundary of appellants’ lot facing the west boundary of the alley. We affirm.
The Morrows owned lots 19 through 23 of Block 6 of the New Riverside subdivision in Jacksonville. When New Riverside was first platted, provision was made for a ten foot alley lying west of and abutting lots 19 through 23. Several years later, on or about March 1, 1979, the City of Jacksonville passed an ordinance closing, vacating and abandoning the alley. On June 27, 1979, the Morrows conveyed lots 19 through 23 by lots and block number only, to appel-lees. The alley is not mentioned in the deed.
Appellants at all times owned lot 18, block 6 of New Riverside which lies west of and abuts the alley. In December, 1980, the Morrows conveyed to appellants, by quit claim deed, the easterly one-half of the abandoned alley. Thereafter, appellants took possession of the property and constructed a fence on that portion, obstructing appellees’ access to the alley. Appellees brought a quiet title action and sought removal of the fence in the alley. The trial court entered a final judgment finding that the quit claim deed from the Morrows to appellants constituted a cloud on appellees’ title to the easterly one-half of the closed alley and quieting title to that property in appellees. Appellants were ordered to remove their fence from the alley.
When the Morrows conveyed lots 19 through 23 to appellees, they conveyed not only title to the lots described in the deed, but also title to the center line of the alley abutting the lots. Servando Building Company v. Zimmerman, 91 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1956); and Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484, 70 So. 435 (1915). The fact that the alley had been vacated prior to the conveyance does not alter this result. Calvert v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See, also, Greenberg v. L.I. Snodgrass Co., 161 Ohio St. 351, 119 N.E. 2d 292, 49 A.L.R.2d 974 (1954). Finally, the trial court correctly ruled that the parole evidence rule precluded appellants from introducing evidence concerning Mr. Morrows’ intentions when he conveyed lots 19 through 23 to appellees. Jackson v. Parker, 153 Fla. 622, 15 So. 2d 451 (1943); Florida Moss Products v. City of Leesburg, 93 Fla. 656, 112 So. 572 (1927).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s evidentiary ruling and the final judgment in its entirety.
ERVIN, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shal v. Mills, 645 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the finding that an easement has been abandoned. See Dean v. Mod Properties, Ltd., 528 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Joseph v. Duran, 436 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Dan Dee Corp. v. Samuels, 124 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1960); Woodlawn Park Cemetery Co. v. City of Miami, 104 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958); Powers v. Scobie, 60 So. 2d 738 (Fla.1952). See and compare Southeast Seminole Civic A…
Authorities Cited
- Annibelle Jackson and Henry N. Jackson v. Parker, 153 Fla. 622 (Fla. 1943)
- Fla. Moss Prods. Co. v. City of Leesburg, 93 Fla. 656 (Fla. 1927)
- Smith v. Horn, 70 Fla. 484 (Fla. 1915)
- Servando Bldg. Co. v. Zimmerman, 91 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1956)
- Calvert v. Morgan, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)