HILLSBORO COVE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
G. HUGHES ARCHIBALD, JR., ET AL., 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.
Hillsboro Cove purchased real property (Parcel A) in 1967 with title insurance, but discovered in 1970 that a 30-foot strip was actually owned by another party. The court affirmed the trial court's award of damages limited to the proportionate value of the defective strip at the time of conveyance, rejecting the buyer's claim for the full cost of curing the title defect.
The measure of damages is the fractional part of the original consideration that the value of the defective portion bears to the whole property at the time of purchase, not the actual cost of curing the title defect. Title insurance policies limit recovery to the proportionate value of the affected property relative to the entire insured property, and the trial court correctly applied these limitations.
[1] The measure of damages for breach of the covenant of seizin is the proportionate value of the part to which title failed at the time of purchase, plus interest for the pe…
[2] A grantor's liability for breach of the covenant of seizin is limited to the proportionate value of the land at the time of sale, not to exceed the original consideration…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The measure of damages is such fractional part of the whole consideration paid as the value at the time of the purchase of the part to which the title failed bears to the whole block purchased, with interest thereon during the time the [appellant] has been deprived of the use of that part to which he could not acquire possession.”
Establishes the controlling rule for calculating damages in breach of covenant of seizin cases, focusing on proportionate value at time of conveyance rather than actual remedial costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1962, Archibald conveyed Parcel B to Weinstock. In 1967, Archibald conveyed adjacent Parcel A to Hillsboro Cove. In 1970, it was discovered that We…
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 Breach Of Title Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
WOODSON, J. WILLIAM, Associate Judge.
In 1962, appellee Archibald conveyed Parcel B of real property to Louis Wein-stock. In 1967, Archibald then conveyed adjacent Parcel A to appellant. However, in 1970 it was discovered that Weinstock was the actual owner of a 30-foot strip of property which was conveyed as a part of Parcel A. Parcel A was insured by a title policy issued by appellee, Lawyers’ Title Guaranty Fund. Prior to 1970 Parcel A had been dedicated to condominium use and appellant planned to construct a part of the condominium on the 30-foot strip. In order to secure title to the 30-foot strip of property, appellant expended $49,850.61 plus a surveying fee of $3,385.00. The trial court awarded appellant $6,011.88 damages representing the proportionate cost of the 30-foot strip as of the date of conveyance (1967). The defendant, Lawyers’ Title Guaranty Fund, issued a title insurance policy on Parcel A and was joined for breach of title insurance policy.
Appellant contends that the trial judge errred in not compensating appellant for his actual loss in curing the breach of the covenant of seizin. We follow the rule in Burton v. Price, 105 Fla. 544, 141 So. 728 (1932): “The measure of damages is such fractional part of the whole consideration paid as the value at the time of the purchase of the part to which the title failed bears to the whole block purchased, with interest thereon during the time the [appellant] has been deprived of the use of that part to which he could not acquire possession.”
Williams v. Azar, 47 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1950) cites 21 C.J.S. Covenants § 142(5) (b), at 1014 (1940), citing Mayo & Robinson v. Maxwell & Moore, 140 Ark. 84, 215 S.W. 678 (1919), which stands for the proposition that the grantor should pay the costs of clearing title not to exceed the original proportionate value of the land at the time it was sold. However, we agree that the proportionate. value of the strip, not the proportionate area, is the test. The trial court as the trier of fact could find from the evidence that the 30-foot strip of property was not of any greater value per square foot than the major piece.
As to the damages sought against the appellee, Lawyers’ Title Guaranty Fund, the trial court correctly applied the limitations imposed in Paragraph 6 of the policy of title insurance:
“In case of any loss to the owner by reason of a defect . . . affecting only a part of the guaranteed property, the measure of damages . . . shall not be a greater fractional part of the declared value of the property as stated in this guarantee than the proportion which the property affected by said defect . . . bears in value to the entire property covered by this guarantee.”
The various other points raised by appellant and by appellees on cross-assignment of error neither demonstrate error nor require discussion.
Affirmed.
CROSS and OWEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allard v. Al-Nayem Int'l, Inc., 59 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…footage of the property and then multiply that number by the total purchase price. Mr. Allard argued that a different formulation of Burton applied, especially when dealing with improved property. He contended that Hillsboro Cove, Inc. v. Archibald, 322 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), clarified that damages are based on the proportionate value of the excluded land, not its proportionate area. In that case, Hills-boro Cove discovered that a thirty-foot strip in a parcel of property it purchased belonged to som…1 / 2
-
Kaufman v. Rosenberg, 658 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1985); Williams v. Azar, 47 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1950); [*642] Hillsboro Cove, Inc. v. Archibald, 322 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Burton v. Price, 105 Fla. 544 (Fla. 1932)
- Williams v. Azar, 47 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1950)