CITY OF NAPLES
v.
MORRIS
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 City of Naples appealed a summary decree quieting title in favor of Morris to land in Naples. The court affirmed, holding that estoppel cannot be used to establish or divest title, only to defend existing paper title, and rejecting the City's estoppel defense based on an unofficial plat.
Estoppel may be applied in defense of a title but not to establish or divest one. The estoppel defense failed because it would serve to destroy the apparent paper title rather than defend it, and the rule against creating title by estoppel exists to prevent uncertainty of titles.
“It is well settled that the principles of estoppel may be applied in defense of a title, but not to establish one.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that estoppel cannot be used to create or divest title.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris obtained title to land through conveyances from The Naples Company and heirs of a former owner, with references to the original recorded plat. …
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 Estoppel In Pais cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary final decree in favor of plaintiff-appellee entered in a suit to quiet title filed by him against the City of Naples, defendant below and appellant ‘here.
The plaintiff deraigned his title to the land in controversy through conveyances from The Naples Company, the owner of record, and the heirs of a former owner of record, which conveyances were made with reference to the original plat recorded in the public records of the county in which it was located. The City, in defense, alleged that plaintiff and other grantees of The Naples Company had purchased property in this particular subdivision, relying on an unofficial plat thereof prepared by The Naples Company and used by the City of Naples Tax Assessor for tax assessment purposes; that the particular portion in controversy had not been assessed for taxes by the City of Naples; that plaintiff knew that other purchasers from The Naples Company purchased in reliance on the unofficial map; that plaintiff recognized the unofficial map by requesting the City to vacate a street shown on the unofficial map but not shown on the original plat with reference to which the conveyance to him was made, which the City did; and that plaintiff was estopped to claim any land-other than that shown on the unofficial map. This contention cannot be sustained.
It is well settled that the principles of estoppel may he applied in defense of a title, but not to establish one. Kerivan v. Fogal, 156 Fla. 92, 22 So. 2d 584, 586; citing Stone v. Culver, 286 Mich. 263, 282 N.W. 142, 119 A.L.R. 512, as follows:
“The purpose of the rule that title • may not be created by estoppel is to prevent the uncertainty of titles which would arise if * * * parol evidence •of an estoppel could be introduced to show that' the paper title is not what it appears to be. The rule is not applicable * * * (where) the estoppel serves to defend and not to destroy the apparent paper title.”
The other questions presented have been considered, and no error has been found.
Accordingly, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby affirmed.
TERRELL, SEBRING, and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blackburn v. Fla. W. Coast Land & Dev. Co., 109 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…n township 39 south, range 21 east, between the true range line and the fence, to which land appellees hold paper title. This is not permitted under the rule that title may not be created by estoppel. As stated in City of Naples v. Morris, Fla.1954, 71 So. 2d 905: “It is well settled that the principles of estoppel may be applied in defense of a title, but not to establish one. Kerivan v. Fogal, 156 Fla. 92, 22 So. 2d 584, 586, citing Stone v. Culver, 286 Mich. 263, 282 N.W. 142, 119 A.L.R. 512, as follows:…
-
Bryant v. Peppe, 238 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1970)…lict certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, in Bryant v. Peppe, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 357. Jurisdiction attaches because of a conflict on the same point of law with City of Naples v. Morris, Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 905, and Blackburn v. Florida West Coast etc., Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 413. The controversy revolves around a narrow strip of land that was, until the 1926 hurricane, a narrow body of water known as Little Sarasota Pass between Siesta Key and Casey Ke…
-
Tunnage v. Green, 947 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…f equitable es-toppel to perfect his interest in the property. The Florida Supreme Court has stated that “[i]t is well settled that the principles of estoppel may be applied in defense of a title, but not to establish one.” City of Naples v. Morris, 71 So. 2d 905, 905 (Fla.1954). “ ‘The purpose of the rule that title may not be created by estoppel is to prevent the uncertainty of titles which would arise if ... parol evidence of an estoppel could be introduced to show that the paper title is not what it appe…
Authorities Cited
- Kerivan v. Fogal, 156 Fla. 92 (Fla. 1945)