J. TUCKER, TRUSTEE
v.
LITTLE HAITI HOUSING ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC.
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.
J. Tucker, as trustee, appealed a circuit court decision regarding property ownership and title disputes with the Little Haiti Housing Association. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment, relying on established principles that a grantor cannot convey greater estate than they possess and that legal title creates a presumption of ownership.
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the person whose name appears on legal title is presumed to be the owner of property, and that a grantor cannot convey a greater estate than they possess or in which they have an alienable title or interest.
[1] The person whose name appears on legal title is presumed to be the owner of the property in question.
[2] A grantor can convey no greater estate than they have or in which they have an alienable title or interest.
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“The person whose name appears on legal title is presumed to be the owner of the property in question”
Establishes the fundamental legal presumption regarding property ownership based on recorded title
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute over property ownership and title between J. Tucker, acting as trustee, and Little Haiti Housing Association, Inc. The low…
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.
Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP and Michael R. Whitt and Meredith A. McBride (Fort Myers), for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hagopian v. Zimmer, 653 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“The person whose name appears on legal title is presumed to be the owner of the property in question” (citing Cannova v. Carran, 92 So. 2d 614, 619 (Fla. 1957))); Rabinowitz v. Keefer, 132 So. 297, 303 (Fla. 1931) (“A grantor can convey no greater estate than he has or in which he has an alienable title or interest . . . .”); Burdine v. Sewell, 109 So. 648 (1929) (relying on fact that grantor did not include both co-owners on purported easement to support trial court’s conclusion that easement was not validly created); see also Advanced Sys., Inc. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 523, 528 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Summary judgment evidence must be in the form of evidence that would be admissible at trial.” (citing Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018))); Custom Design Expo, Inc. v. Synergy Rents, Inc., 327 So. 3d 427, 431 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (declining to consider affidavit opposing summary judgment where affidavit was based on hearsay); Fla. Dep’t of Fin. Servs. v. Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc., 868 So. 2d 600, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (same); Zoda v. Hedden, 596 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (same).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (48 total)
-
Canell v. Arcola Hous. Corp., 65 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1953)…terms and effect of an existing deed; and thirdly, by prescription, that is to say, by a grant established by evidence clearly showing a long and continuous enjoyment and user, although no deed contains the provision. Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375, 109 So. 648; Winthrop v. Wadsworth, Fla., 42 So. 2d 541. Manifestly, none of these situations is present in the case at bar. The plaintiffs are relying upon a mere oral promise to create the easement) which is clearly within the terms of the statute of frauds…
-
Hagan v. Sabal Palms, Inc., 186 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…or some right or easement annexed or appurtenant thereto and tend necessarily to enhance its value or render it more convenient and beneficial to the owner or occupant. * * * ’ ” As said in the earlier case of Burdine v. Sewell, 1926, 92 Fla. 375, 109 So. 648, “A covenant is said to run with the land when either the liability to perform it or the right to take advantage of it passes to the vendee or other assignee of the land.” We think the instant covenant comes well within this quoted text. Sabal had t…
-
J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc. v. Houser, 123 Fla. 641 (Fla. 1936)…es of the house belonging to the defendant and his predecessor in title ever became such a possession on the part of the defendant or his' predecessors in title as to require title to the easement by prescription. In Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375, 109 Sou. 648, we held : “An easement has been defined to be ‘a privilege without profit, which the owner of one tenement has the right to enjoy in respect to that tenement in or over the tenement of another person, whereof the latter is obliged to suffer or ref…
Previewing 3 of 48 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Fin. Servs. v. Associated Indus. Ins. Co., Inc., 868 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Gidwani v. Roberts, 248 So. 3d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Zoda v. Hedden, 596 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Rabinowitz v. Keefer, 100 Fla. 1723 (Fla. 1931)
- Cannova v. Carran, 92 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1957)
- Advanced Sys. v. Gotham Ins. Co., 272 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
- Der Hagopian v. In re Guardianship of Marie Zimmer, 653 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Custom Design EXP, Inc. v. Synergy Rents, 327 So. 3d 427 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)