W. L. KESTER
v.
NELLIE L. COWAN BOSTWICK (FORMERLY NELLIE L. COWAN) A WIDOW, WILCHAR HOLDING COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, SUING FOR HER USE AND BENEFIT, AND GEORGE O. BUTLER, ALSO SUING FOR HER USE AND BENEFIT
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, a companion to a prior ruling, concerns the sufficiency of a tax deed application's description. The court found the description fatally defective due to an inability to link certificate numbers with their corresponding land descriptions, affirming the lower court's decision.
Yes, the description was fatally defective. The court held that the method used to present certificate numbers and land descriptions did not provide a clear link between them, failing to comply with statutory requirements for tax deed applications.
“That question is concluded by what we said in the former case (M-123) but in addition to what we there said, the description was fatally defective in this case because of failure to comply with Section two of Chapter 17457, Acts of 1935, in that a large number of certificates were included by number in one place and the descriptions were recited in another place but there was nothing by which the certificate and appropriate description could be tied together.”
Establishes the specific reason for the description's fatal defect.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a challenge to the description provided in an application for a tax deed. The primary issue is whether the description was sufficien…
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.
This case (M-124) is a companion case to M-123, docketed under the same title and decided this date. There is involved here no question of mesne profits or benefits to the land by reason of permanent improvements made on it. Only the ■question of the sufficiency of the description in the application for the tax deed is involved in this case.
That question is concluded by what we said in the former case (M-123) but in addition to what we there said, the description was fatally defective in this case because of failure to comply with Section two of Chapter 17457, Acts of 1935, in that a large number of certificates were included by number in one place and the descriptions were recited in another place but there was nothing by which the certificate and appropriate description could be tied together. In this, we do not imply that every certificate must be separately advertised. It would be all right to lump certificates for this purpose if the description of the land followed the number of certificate or some other method was employed to definitely connect the number of the certificate with the description of the land it represents.
*451Affirmed on authority of Case M-123, same title as this, decided this date.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, CHAPMAN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
ADAMS, J., dissents.
BROWN, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susye Belle Wells v. Jefferson Thomas, 78 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1955)…land was recorded in a different place without any means of identifying the certificate with the description of the land. The Chancellor so fouud and adjudged the Ashmore tax deed fatally defective on authority of Kester v. Bostwick, 153 Fla., 450, 15 So. 2d 208. In Goodman v. Carter, 158 Fla. 112, 27 So. 2d 748, this court held that Kester v. Bostwick had to do with a tax deed issued under Chapter 17457, Acts of 1935, F.S.A. § 194.15 et seq., while Goodman v. Carter was controlled by Chapter 20722, Acts o…1 / 2
-
Adolph Goodman v. Carter, 158 Fla. 112 (Fla. 1946)…t to taxation, or that the taxes had been paid previous to sale, or that the property had been redeemed prior to the execution and delivery of deed based upon certificate issued for nonpayment of taxes . . (Italics supplied). In Kester v. Bostwick, 153 Fla. 450, 15 So. (2nd) 208, we held notice of application for tax deed fatally defective upon grounds similar to (1) supra because of the non-compliance with section 2 of chapter 17457, acts of 1935. Since the act under consideration in the Kester case chapt…
-
Fredericka Lucian v. Duvane Corp., 158 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1947)…he application for the tax deed, since that does not affect any contract rights of, nor impose any additional burdens upon the holder of the tax sale certificates. See Clark Ray Johnson Co. v. Williford, 62 Fla. 453, 56 Sou. 938; Kester v. Bostwick, 153 Fla. 450, 15 Sou. (2) 201 and Dundemaine v. Shaw, 153 Fla. 899, 16 Sou. (2) 114. The statute requiring notice of application for tax deed to be given to the owner in effect at the time the tax deed was issued was Sec. 40 of Chapter 20722 Laws of 1941, which…