C. FARRIS BRYANT, GOVERNOR, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
ELIZABETH HULDA PEPPE, A SINGLE WOMAN, ET AL., 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.
The Florida appellate court affirmed a trial court's judgment estopping the State from claiming title to Gulf frontage property that had been bounded by a pass obliterated by hurricane avulsion in 1926. The State's long acquiescence in the county's tax assessments of the property as Gulf-fronting, combined with the prior owner's successful defense of possessory rights, justified equitable estoppel against the State's title claim.
The State is estopped from claiming title to the Gulf frontage against the appellees. The trial court's finding of estoppel was amply supported by evidence and is consistent with established Florida law holding that the State's treatment of public property as private property may result in loss of the property.
“the State is just as conclusively estopped from claiming title against these appellees as it was in Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass”
Establishes the court's holding that the State is estopped from asserting title based on equitable principles applied in prior cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOriginally, the land described in appellee Peppe's deeds was bounded on the west by Little Sarasota Pass, which was destroyed by avulsion during the 1…
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 Avulsion cases and more on FLexlaw
Originally, the land described in appel-lee’s deeds was bounded on the west by Little Sarasota Pass, which was obliterated by avulsion during the hurricane of 1926. For this reason, this court held in Siesta Properties, Inc. v. Hart, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 218, that Siesta Properties, Inc., the *358intervenor here, was properly denied a decree quieting its title to the Gulf frontage of the property involved because title was in the State. A prior interlocutory appeal in this case affirmed a partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint, declaring title to be in the State, and leaving open for trial several allegations in the appellees’ reply to the Trustees’ cross-complaint whereunder the State might be held es-topped to assert title. Peppe v. Bryant, Fla. App.1966, 190 So.2d 795. Before the ap-pellees bought the property their predecessor in title had defended his possessory right to the Gulf frontage in an action in which an injunction was entered, enforced and upheld by our Supreme Court in Guess v. Azar, Fla. 1952, 57 So.2d 443. The tax assessor of Sarasota County has for many years assessed appellees’ property (described as Government lots) as fronting on the Gulf of Mexico, collecting in consequence substantially greater sums in taxes than would be the case if the property did not front on the Gulf. The State has not offered to do equity to the appellees who would have been overcharged if its title were confirmed.
The trial judge heard much testimony and considered many exhibits and concluded, on evidence we find adequate, that the State is just as conclusively estopped from claiming title against these appellees as it was in Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 433; Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Claughton, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 775; Daniell v. Sherrill, Fla.1950, 48 So.2d 736, 23 A.L.R.2d 1410, and Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Lobean, Fla.1961, 127 So.2d 98. The State, in cooperation with the officers of its constituent counties, should develop, if it has not already done so, an efficient procedure for keeping track of its property. Our courts have held for many years that the State’s treatment of public property as property of private citizens may result in the loss of it. Of course, it was not until 1960 that this court declared that avulsion precluded attainment of title by the private owners of adjoining property by accretion, but the finding of estoppel here is nevertheless amply supported.
Affirmed.
LILES, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. Peppe, 238 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1970)…ROBERTS, Justice. This cause is before the court on direct-conflict certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Bryant v. Peppe, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 357. Jurisdiction attaches because of a conflict on the same point of law with City of Naples v. Morris, Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 905, and Blackburn v. Florida West Coast etc., Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 413. The controversy revolves around a narrow strip of…
Authorities Cited
- Daniell v. Sherrill, 48 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1950)
- Trs. OF Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Fla. v. Claughton, 86 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 1956)
- Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Fla. v. Lobean, 127 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 1961)
- Trs. of Internal Improvement Fund v. Bass, 67 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1953)
- Siesta Props., Inc. v. Hart, 122 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Guess v. Azar, 57 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1952)
- Peppe v. Bryant, 190 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)