SUZANNE PIERSON, A FEME SOLE,
v.
NATHAN D. BILL, ET AL.
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.
This case involves a dispute over a deed conveying real property where the grantor had limited title. The Florida Supreme Court held that the unusual character of the deed and its language regarding encumbrances placed the purchaser's agent on notice to make further inquiry into the title, and that the agent's reliance on title insurance did not eliminate this duty.
The unusual character of the deed and all circumstances surrounding its execution were legally sufficient to put the purchaser on notice that inquiry might disclose outstanding encumbrances. The purchaser's agent was required to make further inquiry into the title unless the agent was willing to accept the deed when the title insurer expressed willingness to insure.
“Even though the deed to McNiell, the Agent of Bill, be a conveyance without warranty of title, the unusual character of the deed and all the circumstances under which the deed was executed were legally sufficient to put the vendee upon notice that inquiry might disclose an outstanding encumbrance of the title”
Establishes that deed characteristics and surrounding circumstances create notice obligation to investigate title
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSuzanne Pierson purchased real property through a deed executed by Nathan D. Bill's agent, McNiell. The deed stated the title was subject to specific …
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 Assumption Of Mortgage cases and more on FLexlaw
Even though the deed to McNiell, the Agent of Bill, be a conveyance without warranty of title, the unusual character of the deed and all the circumstances under which the deed was executed were legally sufficient to put the vendee upon notice that inquiry might disclose an outstanding encumbrance of the title; and the evidence shows that Counsel for vendee’s agent did take notice of and refer to the peculiar and unusual facts attending the conveyance, but was willing to accept the deed when the agent of the title insurance company expressed a willingness to insure the title.
The deed having stated that the title was subject to specific encumbrances with no statement or implication that the purchaser assumed payment of the encumbrance to the title, it was not necessary to thereafter state in the deed that “the purchaser neither assumes nor agrees to pay the above described mortgages, taxes and assessments”; and when this was stated with a further statement that “it being the intention of both parties to this conveyance that the grantee herein is simply purchasing the equity of the grantor herein in the above described real and personal property,” the latter statement being broader than the preceding statement, may fairly be interpreted to cover the possibility or even the probability of other encumbrances than those expressly referred to in the deed; and such enlarged statement taken with the peculiar and unusual character of the deed and the challenged and discussed circumstances attending the conveyance, certainly were amply sufficient to require the agent of the purchaser to make further inquiry as to the title, unless, as seems to have been the case, the purchaser’s agent was willing to accept the deed as tendered when the title insurer expressed willingness to insure the title.
*596Ellis, C. J., and Buford and Ci-iapman, J. J., concur.
Tyrrell and Brown, J. J., dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zaucha et ux. v. Town OF Medley, 66 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1953)…hat such a reference was sufficient to put subsequent purchasers and creditors on notice of rights outstanding in the lenders, and upon proper inquiry the exact nature and extent of those rights would have been ascertained. See also Pierson v. Bill, 134 Fla. 594, 184 So. 124, and Merrell v. Ridgely, 62 Fla. 546, 57 So. 352. As has been heretofore noted, the appellants in the instant case, at and prior to the time they purchased the property in controversy, had actual knowledge of the fact that a roadway of…