JOHN L. COMI
v.
M & M CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that the tax deed's property description was sufficiently certain to be valid, interpreting abbreviations and symbols to effectuate the conveyance.
The appeal concerns the validity of a tax deed based on its property description. The description contained abbreviations and symbols that required in…
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 appeal is from a final decree in equity holding valid a tax deed.
The only question is one of law, whether the prop- ’ erty is sufficiently described. The description is:
“NW% of SWVi, less E% — SE%—NW%—SW% in Section 35, Township 52 South, Range 41 East, in the County of Dade, State of Florida.”
*424It has been held by this Court:
“Greater Strictness is required of the description of the land contained in a tax deed than in voluntary deeds.” Jarrell v. McRainey, 65 Fla. 149, 61 Sou. 241.
“It is well settled in this jurisdiction that the description of property in a tax deed must be certain in itself or at least capable of being made certain by matters referred to in the deed itself as relating to the description, and evidence aliunde not referred to in the deed cannot be used to ascertain the land intended to be conveyed.” Newson v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., et al., 131 Fla. 143, 179 So. 160.”
Much liberality is indulged in favor of descriptions with the view of upholding deeds and giving effect to the manifest intent of the parties. 8 R.C.L. 1071. Mere clerical errors will not vitiate a deed where the intent of the parties can be ascertained. 26 C.J. 221. The purpose of a description is to afford the means to identify the land conveyed. The language, numerals and abbreviations in the description should be construed with the view of making the conveyance effectual.
In this case we hold the grant was for the NW% of the SW^ of said section containing 40 acres less five acres. This holding is based upon our interpretation of the dash ( — ), as of, instead of and. We reach this conclusion because to do so will effectuate the conveyance. Any other interpretation would render the description wholly meaningless and nugatory. It will be observed that both the land granted as well as the excepted portion are contained in the same section, township and range.
Finding no error in the record and decree, the same is affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. Moore, 152 Fla. 843 (Fla. 1943)…y v. McMillan, 66 Fla. 159, 63 So. 703), or (2) if it is possible to ascertain and identify the land intended to be- conveyed. Ansley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388, 74 So. 505.” In a recent case upholding the validity of a tax deed, Comi v. M. & M. Corp., 148 Fla. 422 (2nd) 389, this Court speaking through Mr. Justice ADAMS, referred to the rule laid down in Jarrell v. McRainey, 65 Fla. 149, 61 So. 241, to the effect that greater strictness is required in the description of the land contained in a tax deed than i…
-
Baker v. Baker, 271 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…f property needs a sufficient description of the property involved. A proper description is needed so that the parties can ascertain, locate and know what property is involved in specific transactions. Comi v. M & M Corporation, 148 [*798] Fla. 422, 4 So. 2d 389 (1941); Mitchell v. Moore, 152 Fla. 843, 13 So. 2d 314 (1943); Ansley v. Graham, 73 Fla. 388, 74 So. 505 (1917); Connelly v. Smith, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 865, cert. den. Fla., 101 So. 2d 811. In the case sub judice, the subject property was well…
Authorities Cited
- Newsom v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 131 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1938)
- The Sumner Lumber Co. v. Deen, 65 Fla. 149 (Fla. 1913)