FLORENCE W. MILLER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SWAN S. LINDSTROM, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Miller brought an ejectment action to recover possession of land in Volusia County, Florida. The trial court upheld the defendant's tax deed title, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the tax deed invalid due to defective land descriptions in the assessment roll, advertisement of sale, and tax deed list.
The tax deed is invalid. The vague descriptions in the assessment roll, advertisement of sale, and tax deed list—'lot 1 assessor's Pierson'—fail to identify the land with sufficient clarity and cannot be cured by a more detailed description in the deed itself, as the deed can only convey land that was properly assessed and sold.
“The description given should be such as to warn the owner of the charge upon his land, and to advise possible purchasers what land is to be sold; that given here, 'lot 1 assessor's Pierson,' 'Lot 1 assessor's, Pierson,' ignate the land in controversy, and can not be so aided by intendment as to be effective.”
Establishes the legal standard for sufficiency of land descriptions in tax proceedings and finds the descriptions here defective.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller proved possession of the land through a deed to her husband, and thereafter as sole heir. Defendant asserted a superior claim based on a tax de…
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.
Cockrell, J.
This cause was referred by the court to its late commissioners who recommended that the judgment be reversed.
It appears from the abstract that the plaintiff in error instituted in the court below an action of ejectment to recover possession of a certain trate of land described by metes and bounds, and “otherwise described according to a map on file in assessor’s map book 3 at page 18 of records of Volusia county, Florida, as lot 1 of assessor’s subdivision of E y2 of N. E. % & N. E. % of S. E. % of Sec. 33, T. 14 S., R. 28 E., at Pierson.” Defendant pleaded the general issue and the cause was tried by the court, a jury having been waived. On the trial the plaintiff proved possession of the premises by her husband under a deed, and after his death by herself as sole heir, prior to the possession of the defendant, who thereupon successfully defended his later possession solely by virtue of a tax deed to land therein described as “lot one (1) assessor’s map of Pierson, Volusia county, Florida.”
Many objections were urged below and are insisted upon here to the validity of the tax title successfully asserted by the defendant in the trial court, but we shall confine ourselves to those questioning the sufficiency of the descriptions of the land found in the assessment rolls and other proceedings, a necessary predicate for any tax deed j.
The description of the assessment roll, in the advertisement of sale and in the list of lands sold for taxes was “lot 1 assessor’s Pierson.” “Lot 1 assessor’s Pierson,” and “lot 1 assessor’s,” respectively. It was shown in the evidence there was no such map as “Assessor’s Pierson” on record. There was a map entitled “Assessor’s plat of C. F. Pierson’s addition to Pierson” and also one with the title of “Assessor’s subdivision of E. % N. E. 14 & N. E. % of S. E. 14 of Sec: 33 T. 14 S., R. 28 E., at Pier-son.” The description given should be such as to warn the owner of the charge upon his land, and to advise possible purchasers what land is to be sold; that given here, “lot 1 assessor’s Pierson.” “Lot 1 assessor’s, Pierson,” ignate the land in controversy, and can not be so aided by intendment as to be effective.
The description in the deed, “lot 1 assor’s map -of Pier-son, Volusia county, Florida,” is more intelligible. But even if we assume-that the deed contains a sufficient description, it does not cure the defective description in the assessment roll, the advertisement of sale and the list of lands sold. Its only effect is to make the deed describe lands not assessed or sold and which, therefore, it could not convey. Grissom v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581; Carncross v. Lykes, 22 Fla. 587; Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391, 17 South. Rep. 635; McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276, 21 South. Rep. 103.
it follows that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. E. Coast Fruit Land Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Fla. 291 (Fla. 1920)…This court has held that “A 'description of land in the .assessment roll, so faulty as not to warn the owner of the charge upon his land or to advise possible purchasers what land is to be sold will invalidate the assessment.” Miller v. Lindstrom, 45 Fla. 473, 33 South. Rep. 521, Headnote 1. Also, “A description of lands on an assessment roll so faulty as not to enable the purchaser to identify the land thereby, is an invalid assessment.” Grissom v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581. “Where a sale is for an entire ta…
-
Dixon v. City of Cocoa, 106 Fla. 855 (Fla. 1932)…d page as appears in the office of the clerk of the circuit court.” See Johnson v. Benbow, 93 Fla. 324, 111 South. Rep. 504. The assessment is invalid because of insufficiency of the description. Gruson v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581; Miller v. Lundstrum, 45 Fla. 473, 33 South. Rep. 521; Porter v. Key West, 69 Fla. 357, 69 South. Rep. 175; F. E. C. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Fla. 291, 85 South. Rep. 661. As the description is invalid the complainant was not entitled to a decree of foreclosure as against lands desc…
-
Newsom v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 131 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1938)…t in the issuance of the tax deed which invalidates it as evidence of title, though it may constitute a sufficient basis on which to ground a suit to foreclose a tax lien under the provisions of Chapter 14572, Acts of 1929.” In Miller v. Lindstrom, 45 Fla. 473, 33 Sou. 521, it was held: “A description of lands on an assessment roll so faulty as not to warn the owner of the charge upon his land, or to advise possible purchasers what land is to be sold, will invalidate the assessment. “A description of la…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Addison P. McKeown v. Collins, 38 Fla. 276 (Fla. 1896)
- Levy v. Ladd, 35 Fla. 391 (Fla. 1895)
- Carncross v. Howell T. Lykes, 22 Fla. 587 (Fla. 1886)
- Grissom v. Furman, 22 Fla. 581 (Fla. 1886)