ELIZABETHAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT L. MAGWOOD AND GLORIA JEAN MAGWOOD, 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.
Elizabethan Development appealed a judgment ejecting it from disputed land that adjoined property owned by the Magwoods. The court affirmed, holding that the Magwoods acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession with color of title because the property was contiguous to their record title and protected by a substantial chain-link fence enclosure.
The Magwoods acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession with color of title because the disputed property was contiguous to their described record title land and protected by a substantial enclosure. The trial court did not err in finding that rezoning did not interrupt possession, the chain-link fence constituted a substantial enclosure, and possession was open and notorious despite vegetation growth.
[1] Adverse possession with color of title may be established when the disputed property is contiguous to the property with record title and is protected by a substantial enc…
[2] A chain link fence with posts set in concrete can constitute a substantial enclosure for purposes of adverse possession.
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“Plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession "with color of title" even though they did not have record title to the disputed land because "the disputed property ... is contiguous to the described land [described in plaintiffs' record title] and 'protected by a substantial enclosure.'"”
Establishes the legal standard for adverse possession with color of title under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe disputed land was contiguous to land to which the Magwoods held record title. Both the disputed land and the Magwoods' record title land had been …
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 Open And Notorious Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
[*252] LEHAN, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs ejecting defendant from certain disputed land. The apparent basis for the judgment was that plaintiffs had acquired title to the land by adverse possession for the requisite period. The land was contiguous to land to which plaintiffs had record title. There was testimony that the disputed land and the land to which plaintiffs had record title had been enclosed for over seven years by a four foot high, galvanized chain link fence with the posts set in concrete. Defendant had record title to, and paid taxes on, the disputed land. We affirm.
Plaintiffs did not acquire title to the disputed land by adverse possession “without color of title” because they did not pay taxes on that land. See Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409, 410 (Fla.1981). Defendant contends that plaintiffs also did not acquire title by adverse possession “with color of title.” However, under the interpretation placed upon section 95.16, Florida Statutes (1988), in Seddon plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession “with color of title” even though they did not have record title to the disputed land because “the disputed property ... is contiguous to the described land [described in plaintiffs’ record title] and ‘protected by a substantial enclosure.’ ” 403 So. 2d at 411.
Under the facts of this case we cannot say the trial court erred in rejecting defendant’s arguments that rezoning by plaintiffs’ predecessor in title which did not interrupt plaintiffs’ physical possession interrupted the statutory adverse possession period, that the chain link fence described above was not a “substantial enclosure” within the meaning of section 95.16, and that the possession by plaintiffs was not open and notorious because the fence became covered by vegetation.
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, J., concurs.
RYDER, C.J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bailey v. Hagler, 575 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…puted property as long as that area is contiguous to the described land and [meets one of the criteria enumerated at section 95.16(2)(a)-(d) ].” 1 Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409, 411 (Fla.1981). See also Elizabethan Development, Inc. v. Magwood, 479 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The “color of title” doctrine is available only where the instrument purporting to be a conveyance has been accepted in good faith and in the honest belief that it vested good title in the claimant. Bonifay v. Dickson, 459 So. 2d…
-
Seton v. Swann, 650 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1995)…urt had held that color of title was limited to property shown in the record. While Swann characterizes this interpretation as dicta, it was subsequently cited as controlling law by at least one district court. See Elizabethan Dev., Inc. v. Magwood, 479 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Revels v. Sico, Inc., 468 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The Setons argue that Seddon controls their case. But as the district court pointed out, the statute analyzed in Seddon was subsequently amended. See ch. 87-194, § 1, at 1…
Authorities Cited
- Seddon v. Harpster, 403 So. 2d 409 (Fla. 1981)