BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND, PETITIONER,
v.
SAND KEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court declined to address whether federal law controls the determination of title to accreted oceanfront land when an upland owner's title derives from a federal patent, finding that its prior holding in Sand Key I was consistent with federal law and rendered the certified question moot.
The Court declined to answer the certified question because its prior holding in Sand Key I was consistent with federal law, rendering the question moot. The Court reaffirmed that an upland owner who did not participate in an improvement causing accretion is entitled to the accreted land under both state law and the common law rule, irrespective of whether title derives from a federal patent.
[1] Title to accreted land belongs to the upland owner when the upland owner did not participate in an improvement that caused the accretion.
[2] The common law rule regarding accretion applies irrespective of statutory provisions.
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“Where title to oceanfront property is derived from a federal patent, federal law determines the extent of that title including title to all future accretions and all such accretions belong to the littoral landowner.”
The district court's holding in Sand Key II that federal law controls title to accreted land when the original title derives from a federal patent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSand Key Associates owned oceanfront property in Florida and sought to quiet title to land accreted to its upland property. The Board of Trustees 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 Common Law Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Justice.
This is a petition to review Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Sand Key Associates, Ltd., 489 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (Sand Key II), which is a continuation of a suit to quiet title by Sand Key & Associates previously before this Court. The factual circumstances are set forth in the Second District’s prior decision in Sand Key Associates, Ltd., v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 458 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (Sand Key I), and our opinion approving that decision, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Sand Key Associates, Ltd., No. 66,372 (Fla. Jul. 9, 1987). In approving the district court decision in Sand Key I, we held that section 161.051, Florida Statutes (1981), did not entitle the state to claim title to accreted land of an upland owner who did not participate in an improvement that caused the accretion; we concluded the upland owner was entitled to the accretions. We also noted our holding was consistent with the common law rule concerning this type of accretion, irrespective of the statute.
Because of the unusual procedural posture of this case, the district court considered, in a separate proceeding, the second count of the claim of Sand Key that has resulted in the district court decision now before this Court. The second count was based on the theory that federal law controls the situation and the district court agreed, holding: “Where title to oceanfront property is derived from a federal patent, federal law determines the extent of that title including title to all future accretions and all such accretions belong to the littoral landowner.” 489 So. 2d at 36. After so holding, the district court certified the following question:
Does the answer to the question posed in Sand Key Associates, Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 458 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), depend upon whether the title of any upland owner is traceable to a federal patent?
We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Our holding in Sand Key I is consistent with federal law in these circumstances, and, consequently, we find no need to address whether federal law controls in this situation. Our answer in Sand Key I has rendered moot the question posed in Sand Key II. Accordingly, we decline to answer the question and dismiss this petition for review.
It is so ordered.
MCDONALD, C.J., SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., and ADKINS, J. (Retired), concur. EHRLICH, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sand KEY Assocs. v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund OF the State OF Fla., 458 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Earl A. Hollis, Inc. v. Haas, 489 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)