SQUIRES
v.
RISPLER
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.
Lillie T. Squires appealed a decree quieting title in Frank Rispler based on adverse possession. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that Rispler failed to establish the actuality and continuity of possession required by Florida's adverse possession statute.
The court held that Rispler failed to satisfy the statutory requirements of actuality and continuity of possession, and that the testimony failed to meet the high degree of certainty, clarity and positiveness required in adverse possession cases.
“we are convinced that it fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of the actuality and continuity of possession”
States the core deficiency in plaintiff's adverse possession claim
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 22, 1942, Rispler received a warranty deed from C. B. Squires purporting to convey entire title to two contiguous tracts in Dade County, …
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 Color Of Title cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKS, Associate Justice.
Lillie T. Squires, the defendant in the lower Court, appeals from a decree quieting title to certain lands in the plaintiff, Frank Rispler, in which she claimed an undivided one-half interest. May 8, 1952 Rispler brought the suit to quiet title to two certain contiguous tracts of land in Dade County against Lillie T. Squires and others. She is the sole contesting defendant.
Plaintiff based his title on payment of taxes and adverse possession for the seven-year period under color of title of warranty deed from C. B. Squires of the date of September 22, 1942 purporting to convey the entire title to him. On that date recorded title was in the name of C. B. Squires and Lillie T. Squires as tenants in common. The adverse possession relied upon to satisfy the Statute is that of cultivation of the land or portion thereof continuously for the seven-year period beginning with the receipt of the deed. His proof is to the effect that immediately upon receipt of the deed he went into possession and shortly thereafter cultivation of the premises commenced. Upon the issue of the sufficiency and continuity of the cultivation of the lands testimony was taken before a Master who recommended decree for the plaintiff and upon final hearing the Chancellor confirmed the report and decreed the relief prayed quieting the title in the plaintiff.
We have carefully and in detail considered the testimony of the several witnesses and the evidence of the plaintiff and, appraising it in its most favorable view to support the claim of adverse possession, we are convinced that it fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of the actuality and continuity of possession. Moreover, the testimony adduced fails to measure up to the high degree of certainty, clarity and positiveness required in a case of this character. Gould v. Carr, 33 Fla. 523, 15 So. 259, 24 L.R.A. 130; Atlantic Coast Line Railway Co. v. Seward, 112 Fla. 326, 150 So. 257.
The cause is reversed with directions that the bill of complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
THOMAS, Acting C. J., and TERRELL and MATHEWS, TT., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oliver H. Culbertson et ux. v. Herbert T. Montanbault et ux., 133 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)…e, and unbroken for the statutory period. Gould v. Carr, 1894, 33 Fla. 523, 15 So. 259, 24 L.R.A. 130, and the facts establishing the adverse possession must be to a higher degree of certainty, clarity and positiveness, Squires v. Rispler, Fla.1953, 69 So. 2d 177, and continuity is the very essence of the doctrine. Horton v. Smith-Richardson Inv. Co., 1921, 81 Fla. 255, 87 So. 905, While evidence of the payment of taxes is admissible as one of the circumstances tending to determine the fact and extent of pos…
-
Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…unbroken for the statutory period. Gould v. Carr, 1894, 33 Fla. 523, [*751] 15 So. 259, 24 L.R.A. 130, and the facts establishing the adverse possession must be to a higher degree of certainty, clarity and positiveness, Squires v. Rispler, Fla.1953, 69 So. 2d 177, and continuity is the very essence of the doctrine. Horton v. Smith-Richardson Inv. Co., 1921, 81 Fla. 255, 87 So. 905. While evidence of the payment of taxes is admissible as one of the circumstances tending to determine the fact and extent of pos…
Authorities Cited
- Rutledge Gould v. Carr, 33 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1894)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Seward, 112 Fla. 326 (Fla. 1933)