JAMES C. CRUIKSHANK, E.E. SIMMONS AND LOGAN SMITH, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHPOINTE DEVELOPMENT, 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.
Appellants Cruikshank, Simmons, and Smith owned Sunrise Associates, which conveyed golf course property to Longboat Terrace Corporation (Southpointe's predecessor). Southpointe sued to reform the deed, claiming the disputed property owned by Sarasota Utilities was inadvertently omitted. The appellate court reversed, holding that a deed cannot be reformed to include property not owned by the grantor, and Sarasota Utilities (a separate corporate entity) was not bound by the original conveyance.
A deed cannot be reformed to include land not owned by the grantor. Sarasota Utilities, Inc., a separate corporate entity that was not party to the original sale and has not been shown to be a mere facade or alter ego of Sunrise Associates, cannot be bound by Sunrise Associates' conveyance to Longboat.
[1] A deed will not be reformed to include land not owned by the grantor.
[2] A corporate entity cannot be bound by the actions of its predecessors in title if it was not a party to the original transaction and its corporate identity is not a mere…
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“A deed will not be reformed so as to include land not owned by the grantor.”
Establishes the fundamental principle preventing reformation of deeds to include property the grantor did not own.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSunrise Associates, owned by appellants Cruikshank, Simmons, and Smith, conveyed real and personal property comprising part of Sunrise Golf Course to …
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 Reformation Of Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
The defendants below appeal from an order of the trial court awarding to South-pointe Development, Inc. (Southpointe) a parcel of real property and a maintenance shed thereon. We reverse.
Appellants James C. Cruikshank, E.E. Simmons and Logan Smith were the partners owning Sunrise Associates. Sunrise Associates conveyed to Longboat Terrace Corporation (Longboat), the predecessor in title of appellee Southpointe, real and personal property which is a part of the Sunrise Golf Course. Confusion as to the exact property conveyed by Sunrise Associates led to Southpointe’s filing a complaint for reformation of deed and declaratory judgment.
The disputed property is owned by Sarasota Utilities, Inc., formerly known as Sunrise Utilities, Inc. It was alleged that “[o]ne or more of the individual defendants own and control defendant Sarasota Utilities, Inc. and owned or controlled defendant Sarasota Utilities, Inc., formerly known as Sunrise Utilities, Inc.” In fact, Sarasota Utilities is a corporate entity which has not been identified as one and the same with the appellants or Sunrise Associates.
The key to this case is that it appears that Sarasota Utilities, Inc. did not convey the disputed property to South-pointe or Longboat in conjunction with appellants’ conveyance of their property to Longboat. Also, it has not been shown that Sarasota Utilities, Inc. conveyed its property to the appellants. Hence, Sarasota Utilities, Inc. cannot be bound by Sunrise Associates’ real estate contract with, or the deed given to, Southpointe’s predecessor in title.
The trial court found that “the present corporate titleholder [Sarasota Util ities] is charged with knowledge of the omission in the deed and with the obligation to comply with the contract; and is bound by the acts of its predecessors in title [Sunrise Utilities] in this respect.” We disagree as neither Sarasota Utilities, Inc. nor Sunrise Utilities, Inc. was a party to the first sale, and the corporate entity of Sarasota Utilities, Inc. and Sunrise Utilities, Inc. has not been shown to be a mere facade for or “alter ego” of Sunrise Associates or its partner/owner. A deed will not be reformed so as to include land not owned by the grantor. Pittman v. Fleming, 253 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), cert. denied, 259 So. 2d 719 (Fla.1972). Cf. Bevis Construction Co. v. Grace, 115 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959) (all interested persons should be joined in suit for reformation).
Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND with instructions that this cause of action be dismissed.
SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Southpointe Dev., Inc. v. Cruikshank, 484 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…dgment contending that the description in ap-pellees’ deed mistakenly failed to include the maintenance sheds. The trial court granted reformation of the deed to include the maintenance shed property. In Cruikshank v. Southpointe Development, Inc., 454 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), this court reversed that judgment because the record showed that the maintenance shed property, rather than being owned by appellees, was actually owned by Sarasota Utilities, Inc., a company allegedly controlled by one or more o…
Authorities Cited
- Bevis Constr. Co., Inc. v. Grace, 115 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- Pittman v. Philip J. Fleming et ux., 253 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Wood v. State, 259 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1972)
- Philip J. Fleming et ux. v. Pittman, 259 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 1972)