ARTHUR WOODMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MAGGIE JONES AND GRACIE JONES, 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.
Woodman sought to quiet title to real estate based on a tax deed, but the Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of his bill of complaint, holding that equity courts cannot maintain suits solely to validate tax deeds against former record titles without evidence that the record holder has attempted to assert their claim.
A court of equity cannot maintain a bill of complaint for the sole purpose of declaring the validity of a tax deed by quieting the tax title against the former record title merely because the record title casts a cloud on the former, absent evidence of subsequent assertion of the record title.
“In the present state of our law, a bill in equity can not be maintained for the sole purpose of declaring the validity of a tax deed by quieting the tax title against the former record title upon the theory that the mere existence of the latter casts a cloud upon the former, where there has been no attempt subsequent to the issuance of the tax deed to assert the record title.”
Establishes the core holding that courts cannot entertain bills to quiet tax titles merely to remove clouds without evidence of attempted assertion of the record title.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWoodman claimed fee simple title to real estate under a quit claim deed from I. Otto and Warren Otto. I. Otto claimed title under a tax deed issued by…
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 Tax Deed Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
This was a suit by the alleged owner of *178certain real estate to quiet title. Arthur Woodman, the appellant, complainant in the court below, claimed the fee simple title to the land under a quit claim deed to him from one I. Otto and Warren Otto, her husband, I. Otto claiming under a tax deed made by Fred E. Fenno, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County.
Demurrer was sustained to the bill of complaint. From this order appeal was taken.
In Stuart vs. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087, 114 Sou. 767, this Court held:
“In the present state of our law, a bill in equity can not be maintained for the sole purpose of declaring the validity of a tax deed by quieting the tax title against the former record title upon the theory that the mere existence of the latter casts a cloud upon the former, where there has been no attempt subsequent to the issuance of the.tax deed to assert the record title.
Although, under Chapter 7857, Laws of 1919, a court of equity may be authorized to construe a tax deed under which complainant claims as grantee and declare his rights thereunder based upon that construction, that statute does not contemplate that the court shall explore the procedure antecedent to the tax deed for the purpose of pronouncing a decree declaratory of the validity of such deed as against imperfections in the antecedent procedure.”
See also Cook et al. vs. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373, 123 Sou. 765, and. cases there cited.
The bill of complaint in this case falls clearly within the purview of the enunciation of this Court in Stuart vs. Stephanus, supra.
The order appealed from should be affirmed with directions that the bill of complaint be dismissed. It is so ordered.
*179Affirmed.
Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. City OF Tallahassee, 154 Fla. 638 (Fla. 1944)…her relief is or could be claimed, and such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final decree in chancery! . . . This statute has been before the court on many occasions. See Sheldon v. Powell, 99 Fla. 782, 128 So. 258; Woodman v. Jones, 101 Fla. 177, 133 So. 620; Southern Food Stores, Inc. v. Palm Groceries, Inc., 134 Fla. 838, 184 So. 502; Griley v. Rackley, 135 Fla. 829, 185 So. 734; Mayfair Operating Corp. v. Bessemer Properties, Inc., 150 Fla. 132, 7 So. (2nd) 342; Lippman v. Shapiro, 151 F…
-
Day v. Benesh, 104 Fla. 58 (Fla. 1932)…ecently recorded deed, even in the absence of the provisions of said Chapter 10223, Acts of 1925, as there was an attempt by the record title holder to assert his title subsequent to the issuance of the tax deed to Seemiller. Woodman v. Jones et al. 101 Fla. 177, 133 So. 620; Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087, 114 So. 767. The question rises as to whether or not Benesh, under the conditions shown by the record and who was not in possession at any time before, or during the suit, was, under his affirmative…
Authorities Cited
- Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087 (Fla. 1927)
- Cook v. Pontious, 98 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1929)