ROSA E. ROE, ET VIR, APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGE H. KENDRICK, ET UX., 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 Supreme Court affirmed a decree quieting title to a 30-foot strip of land in a platted subdivision, holding that the strip was not dedicated to public use or as an easement for adjoining lot owners because the original owner's intent to dedicate was not clearly and unequivocally shown.
The strip was not dedicated to public use or as an easement because the original owner's intent to dedicate was not clearly and unequivocally demonstrated. The burden to establish dedication rests on the party asserting it, and defendants failed to meet this burden.
“It is well settled that to constitute a dedication there must be an intention by the owner clearly indicated by his words or acts to dedicate the land tO' public use and an acceptance by the public of the dedication, and proof of these facts must be clear, satisfactory and unequivocal.”
Establishes the legal standard for dedication: clear, unequivocal intent plus public acceptance
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHoward Cannon Park was platted in December 1921 showing a 30-foot strip between Block B and Block C with no clear designation of its purpose. The orig…
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 Dedication Of Land cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal brings for review final decree quieting title to a strip of land thirty feet wide and one hundred ninety-one and two-tenths feet long lying immediately west of Lot 1 in Block C of Howard Cannon Park in Polk County, Florida.
Howard Cannon Park was platted and the plat filed for record in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Polk County on December 2, 1921. This plat showed Block B consisting of six (6) lots, then the 30-foot strip above referred to and then Block C consisting of ten (10) lots.
There was no lettering on the map to indicate whether that strip was intended to- be a public passageway or not. There appeared on the map one forty-foot drive designated Lake Cannon Boulevard; another drive between Lake Howard and Blocks D and E as shown on the plat which was designated as Lake Howard Avenue, and another drive lying south of Block E, and south of that area marked “Home and Grove,” which was designated Deer Lake Avenue.
Defendants’ predecessors in title purchased Lot 1 in Block C from the immediate grantee of the owner who platted the land and sold that lot according to the plat.
There is nothing in the record to show that the original vendor made any verbal or written representations to the purchasers of Lot 1 in Block C that the 30-foot strip, supra, *121was to remain open as a passage-way or was dedicated to the public. The only evidence in this regard is the plat itself. Before the defendants purchased Lot 1, supra, the original owner and vendor, who made and filed the plat, supra, sold the lands lying west of Block C, together with other lands, to a third party describing the lands by meets and bounds which description included the 30-foot strip, supra. Thereafter, and before purchase of Lot 1 by defendants, the purchaser who acquired title by metes and bounds, supra, replatted the subdivision except Blocks C and D and by this plat the 30-foot strip was included in Lot 7 of Block B.
The evidence warrants the conclusion of the chancellor that the 30-foot strip was never used as a passageway either by the public or the owners of Lot 1 in Block C as a way to reach Lake Cannon either from Lot 1, supra, or from Lake Cannon Boulevard. As the plat itself does not make it clearly to appear that the 30-foot strip was intended to be dedicated as a passage-way for public use, or for the benefit of lot owners in common, parol evidence was properly admitted to prove the intention of the parties.
The evidence fails to establish that the vendor under the original plat intended to dedicate this strip either to the use of lot owners or to the public.
It is well settled that to constitute a dedication there must be an intention by the owner clearly indicated by his words or acts to dedicate the land tO' public use and an acceptance by the public of the dedication, and proof of these facts must be clear, satisfactory and unequivocal. See City of Palmetto v. Katsch, 86 Fla. 506, 98 Sou. 352; City of Miami v. F. E. C. Ry. Co., 79 Fla. 539, 84 Sou. 726; State v. Welpton, 34 Iowa 144.
The burden to establish dedication is on the party asserting it. Wilson, Att’y. Gen., v. Lakeview Land Co., 143 Ala. 291, 39 Sou. 303.
*122We do not mean to hold that before an adjoining lot owner may maintain his right to have a dedicated space left open for his convenience and enjoy an easement therein, there must be an acceptance by the public of the dedication. His rights in this regard are not dependent upon the acceptance by the public, but before his rights accrue in such easement, it must be clearly and unequivocally shown that it was the intention of the owner to so dedicate. As the intent of the owner to dedicate the' particular strip is not clearly and unequivocally shown, no good purpose can be served by discussing or stating what rights the adjoining lot owner would have acquired, had the dedication been clearly shown.
The defendants, relying upon the alleged dedication, have not carried the burden required of them in this regard and, no reversible error being found in the record, the decree is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Terrell and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. THE Town OF Riviera, 157 Fla. 194 (Fla. 1946)…McDaniel, supra; 23rd St. Realty Corp. v. City of Miami Beach, supra; Kirkland v. City of Tampa, 75 Fla. 271, 78 So. 17; City of Pensacola v. Kersey, 115 Fla. 496, 155 So. 730; Miller v. Bay-to-Gulf, Inc., 141 Fla. 452, 193 So. 425; Roe v. Kendrick, 146 Fla. 119, 200 So. 394. When ;the charge that was requested by the plaintiff is considere^ in connection with the charge that was given when the jury returned to the court room for further instructions, it is apparent that not only did the trial judge fail t…
-
Star Island Assocs. v. City OF ST. Petersburg Beach, 433 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…cceptance by the public. Bishop v. Nussbaum, 175 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). Proof of the intention to dedicate and of the acceptance must be clear and unequivocal, and the burden of proof is on the party claiming the dedication. Roe v. Kendrick, 146 Fla. 119, 200 So. 394 (1941). We do not find that there was any common law dedication in the case at bar. No dedication to the public appears on any plat or recorded map or in any recorded agreement. Nor can we say that the facts of this case unequivocally s…
-
City OF Miami v. A. D. Jansik and wife, 89 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1956)…s case. Then when the evidence as a whole is considered, we do not think the chancellor should be overruled. There • was ample ■ support. for his judgment. We think the case last cited supports his finding as do the following cases: Roe v. Kendrick, 146 Fla. 119, 200 So. 394; Miller v. Bay-To-Gulf, Inc., 141 Fla. 452, 193 So. 425, and other cases of like character. On authority of these cases, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. ■ ■ Affirmed. DREW, C. J., and HOBSON and THORNAL, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Palmetto v. Lucretia A. Katsch and W. A. Katsch, 86 Fla. 506 (Fla. 1923)
- Luce v. Lee, 79 Fla. 693 (Fla. 1920)
- City of Miami v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co., 79 Fla. 539 (Fla. 1920)