MCRAE LAND & TIMBER CO.
v.
ZIEGLER 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.
McRae Land & Timber Co. sought to establish Hays Creek's meandering as a boundary line between its property and adjacent land owned by Ziegler and others in Jackson County, Florida. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that coterminous landowners cannot establish a non-true boundary line based on neighborhood reputation and acquiescence unless the true line is uncertain or disputed.
Coterminous landowners cannot conclusively establish as a boundary between their lands a line which they know not to be the true one, except by a written agreement with proper consideration containing words of conveyance, or unless the true line is uncertain or disputed. Since McRae's deed clearly established the true line and no prior dispute existed, the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint.
“It is clear that coterminous landowners cannot conclusively establish as a boundary between their lands a line which they know not to be the true one, except by an agreement in writing based on proper consideration and containing words of conveyance, unless a true line is uncertain or disputed.”
The controlling legal principle that defeats McRae's claim, establishing that boundary alteration requires either a written conveyance agreement or proof that the true line was uncertain or disputed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcRae Land & Timber Co. owned the North Tract, described by true lines in the deed records. Ziegler and others owned the adjacent South Tract, also de…
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 Boundary By Acquiescence cases and more on FLexlaw
MATHEWS, Justice.
The real purpose of this suit was an attempt to have the Circuit Court establish the meandering of a creek as a boundary line of certain real estate. The lower Court dismissed the bill of complaint upon the motion of the appellees and entered a final decree. This appeal is from that final decree.
The relief sought is not based upon a claim by the appellant that it has acquired title to any portion of this land by adverse possession.
It appears that the parties in this cause •claimed title to various tracts of land and from the very beginning of such titles, the lands were described by true lines. Paragraph 2 of the bill of complaint is as follows :
“That the plaintiff had and holds the record fee simple title to the following described land in Jackson County, Florida, hereinafter sometimes called the North Tract: ‘South half of Section 28 and South half of Section 29 in Township 6 North, Range 10 West.’
“That, in addition to said North Tract, the plaintiff owns the Northeast quarter of Northeast quarter of Section 33, Northwest quarter of Northeast quarter and Northwest quarter of Section 34 in said township and range, and other lands which are contiguous to said North Tract.
“That the defendant, Edward G. Ziegler, claims to have and hold the record title less certain mineral interest in the name of the defendants, W. M. Greve and Stanton Griffis, as Trustee, to the following described land in said County hereinafter sometimes called the South Tract: ‘East half of Northeast quarter, Southwest quarter of Northeast quarter and South half of Section 32 and all of Section 33 less Northeast quarter of Northeast quarter, in Township 6 North, Range 10 West.’ ”
It is admitted that according to the deeds of the respective parties and according to the records, there was a true line. The appellant claims that by general reputation in the neighborhood and by acquiescence of the appellees, the true line is the meanderings of Hays Creek.
It does not appear from the bill of complaint that the location of the true line was uncertain or unknown to the present or any prior owners of the two parcels of land or that there was ever any dispute about the line at any time by the present or prior owners except the dispute which began in 1951 and which brought about this litigation. 125 acres of land is involved, and it does not appear that the appellant or its predecessors in title ever returned said property for taxation or that it or its predecessors ever paid any taxes thereon.
It is clear that coterminous landowners cannot conclusively establish as a boundary between their lands a line which they know not to be the true one, except by an agree ment in writing based on proper consideration and containing words of conveyance, unless a true line is uncertain or disputed. Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805; Board of Public Instruction v. Boehm, 138 Fla. 548, 189 So. 663; Shaw v. Williams, Fla., 50 So. 2d 125.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., DREW,' J., and PARKS, Associate Justice, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Holley v. MAY, 75 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 1954)…ce of the plaintiff long after the original transaction, and there is no contention that there was any “acquiescence” to the encroachment after this discovery was made. Shaw v. Williams, Fla., 50 So. 2d 125; McRae Land & Timber Co. v. Ziegler, Fla., 65 So. 2d 876, and cases therein cited. As to the sufficiency of the defense of adverse possession, it does not appear from the answer that there has been compliance with the statute requiring return for taxation, by proper legal description, of property adverse…
-
Blackburn v. Fla. W. Coast Land & Dev. Co., 109 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…ce of the plaintiff long after the original transaction, and there is no contention that there was any ‘acquiescence’ to the encroachment after this discovery was made. Shaw v. Williams, Fla., 50 So. 2d 125; McRae Land & Timber Co. v. Ziegler, Fla., 65 So. 2d 876, and cases therein cited.” Appellants’ final contention relates to the five miles of disputed strip north of the highway, which was actually fenced in with land to which they held good title. While it is admitted that no taxes were paid upon land l…
-
Von King v. Carden, 237 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…TOR, J., concurs. JOHNSON, C. J., dissents, with opinion. . Watrous v. Morrison, 332 Fla. 261, 14 So. 805 (1894), and Reil v. Myers, 222 So. 2d 42 (Fla.App. 4th 1969). . Holley v. May, 75 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1954); McRae Land & Timber Co. v. Ziegler, 65 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1953); James W. Day, The Validation of Erroneously Located Boundaries by Adverse Possession and Related Doctrines, 10 U.Fla.L.Rev. 245 at 265. .McRae Land & Timber Co. v. Ziegler, 65 So. 2d 876 (Fla.1953).…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watrous v. Morrison, 33 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1894)
- Shaw v. Williams, 50 So.2d 125 (Fla. 1950)
- Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Broward Cnty. v. Boehm, 138 Fla. 548 (Fla. 1939)