WILLIAM L. HUGHES, APPELLANT,
v.
TOWN OF MEXICO BEACH, 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.
Hughes appealed a judgment denying his claimed ownership of a strip of property in Mexico Beach, Florida, which the Town contended was a dedicated public street. The court affirmed the town's ownership, holding that dedication of property for public use can be accepted either by formal government action or by public use, and that acceptance of some streets in a platted subdivision constitutes acceptance of all dedicated roads absent evidence of intent to limit acceptance.
The court held that the town properly owned the disputed parcel as a dedicated street. Acceptance of a dedication can be either formal or implied through public use, formal written acceptance is unnecessary, and acceptance of some streets in a platted subdivision constitutes acceptance of all dedicated roads in that subdivision absent evidence of intent to limit acceptance.
[1] Acceptance of a dedication of property for public use can be established by formal governmental action or by public user.
[2] Formal or written acceptance of a property dedication is not a prerequisite for its validity.
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 acceptance of a dedication of property for public use can be either by formal action of the government to whom the dedication is offered, or by public user.”
Establishes the core legal principle that formal acceptance is not required for property dedication
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 25-foot wide, 130-foot long parcel of property located in Mexico Beach Unit No. 6, Block 1 was shown as a dedicated street on the original plat of t…
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 Dedication Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from an adverse final judgment rendered below denying appellant’s claim of ownership of a strip of property located in Bay County, Florida. Appellant disputed the appellee’s claim of ownership by dedication of a 25-foot wide, approximately 130 foot long parcel of property located within a previously subdivided unit of land in what is now Mexico Beach, Florida. The disputed property is located between two lots owned by appellant, Lots 2 and 3 of a six-lot unit of property recorded as Mexico Beach Unit No. 6, Block 1.
Appellant’s primary argument centers on the contention that there neither was nor could be a formal acceptance of the dedication of the disputed strip under Section 177.081, Florida Statutes (1983), and that the evidence is not sufficient to support a claim of ownership by any governmental authority under Section 95.361, Florida Statutes (1983).1
Appellee, on the other hand, points out that the disputed parcel is a part of a dedicated street shown on the original plat of the subdivision, which was duly approved by the county commission and re corded as required by law in 1951. Appel-lee maintains further that the evidence before the trial court was ample to establish acceptance of the dedication by improvement of some of the streets in the subdivision, and by public use of those streets as well as the disputed strip for many years prior to as well as after the time efforts were made by appellant or his predecessors to establish private ownership or control over the property.
The acceptance of a dedication of property for public use can be either by formal action of the government to whom the dedication is offered, or by public user. Hollywood v. Zinkil, 283 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), quashed in part on other grounds, 321 So. 2d 65 (Fla.1975), on remand, 403 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Hence, formal or written acceptance is unnecessary. Anderson v. Town of Groveland, 113 So. 2d 569 (Fla.2d DCA 1959). The acceptance of some of the streets or roads in a platted subdivision is said to constitute an acceptance of the offer to dedicate all of the roads in the subdivision, absent proof of an intention to limit the acceptance. Indian Rocks Beach South Shore v. Ewell, 59 So. 2d 647 (Fla.1952), followed in Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County, 313 So. 2d 770, 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Moreover, acceptance of a dedication is implied from the actual use of the property by the public. 19 Fla.Jur.2d, Dedication, Section 20.
Upon our consideration of the briefs and the record, we conclude that the trial judge did not err in determining that the disputed parcel was a dedicated street owned and held by the Town of Mexico Beach for public use. We find appellant’s argument on equitable estoppel grounds wholly without merit.
The judgment appealed from is therefore AFFIRMED.
SMITH, WENTWORTH and WIGGIN-TON, JJ., concur. . By action on April 27, 1982, subsequent to the filing of this action, appellee formally accepted all dedicated property within its corporate limits.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Jacksonville v. Lowell Kent Horn and Juanita Horn, 496 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e, Inc. v. Ewell, 59 So. 2d 647 (Fla.1952) (public acceptance by use of the main thoroughfare of platted subdivision constituted acceptance of the offer to dedicate the entire system of streets appearing on plat); and Hughes v. Town of Mexico Beach, 455 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (same). Although the cases mentioned are not exactly on point, the concepts involved are sufficiently analogous to afford a reasonable basis for our view that “any part” refers to both length and width. We turn next to the “use”…
-
LEE Cnty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. City OF Cape Coral, 159 So. 3d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…d in section 177.081. . To the contrary, in the absence of a formal acceptance by the local governing body, LCEC’s use of the easement could have been deemed an acceptance of the dedication on behalf of the public. See Hughes v. Town of Mex. Beach, 455 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (noting that the acceptance of a dedication may be by formal action of a governing body or by implication from the actual use of the property by the public). . Now numbered as § 34.91. . LCEC contends that language in the…
-
Flowers v. Seagrove Beach, Inc., 479 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…tent, Bonifay, but is only an offer to dedicate and, until accepted, may be revoked. Weber v. City of Hollywood, 120 So. 2d 826 (Fla.2d DCA 1960). Acceptance may be by formal action of the government or by public use. Hughes v. Town of Mexico Beach, 455 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Here, the dedication appearing in the 1923 plat constituted an offer of the park area. No record evidence reflects either formal governmental acceptance or any use by the public until lots were sold in 1943. However, by that ti…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Indian Rocks Beach South Shore v. Ewell, 59 So.2d 647 (Fla. 1952)
- Hollywood, Inc. v. City OF Hollywood, 321 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1975)
- City OF Hollywood v. Zinkil, 283 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Pinellas Career Servs. Ass'n v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & the Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 403 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Anderson v. Town OF Groveland, 113 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Town OF Palm Beach v. Palm Beach Cnty., 313 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)