Burnham v. Davis Islands, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 March 1956 |
Citation | 87 So.2d 97 |
Parties | Fred D. BURNHAM, Jr., and Hal K. Leggitt, Appellants, v. DAVIS ISLANDS, Incorporated, a Corporation, et al., Appellees. . Special Division B |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hall, Farnsworth & Rousseau, Tampa, for appellants.
Reeves, Allen & Dell and Gibbons & Gibbons, Tampa, for appellees.
Paul Game, Tampa, for Davis Islands Civic Assocation, amicus curiae.
The appellants, Fred D. Burnham, Jr., and Hal K. Leggitt, instituted the litigation which gives rise to this appeal, seeking to enjoin the subdivision and sale of a portion of Davis Islands, in Tampa Bay, by the owners, appellees Davis Islands, Inc., Byars-Thompson, Inc., Alfred Dana and Bernice Dana, his wife.
The property in question is that upon which Davis Islands, Inc., one of the original developers of Davis Islands subdivision, operated a golf course for many years, from the time of its construction shortly after the land was pumped from the bay in the 1920's until December 31, 1954. The record relied upon the establish the factual background in this case exceeds 1,000 pages, but in general outline the situation reflected is this:
From the inception of the venture it was widely publicized as offering many attractions to prospective home owners. Various advertisements and brochures pointed to the ready accessibility of recreational facilities for water sports, tennis, as well as golf, in surroundings of great beauty and permanent values. Sales were made prior to completion of the dredging operations, and apparently before any plats were recorded. The subdivision was comprised of several sections, each covered by a separate plat. The plats covering the particular sections and area here involved were placed of record in 1925, and upon each record plat covering this area the particular blocks in question appeared simply as open spaces marked 'Reserved-See Margin.' The marginal notation was as follows:
'The owner contemplates that the blocks, marked 'Reserved-See Margin' may become a part of a golf course, but the owner expressly reserves the absolute right to prescribe the term of any dedication hereafter made or to subdivide or dispose of the same in such manner at it may determine.'
According to testimony of appellants themselves, the section containing the golf course was not developed to any extent until after 1951. The appellant Burnham first purchased lots in the subdivision in 1952, and Leggitt in 1954. Burnham had been familiar for several years, by virtue of his operations as a real estate broker, with the general promotional work of the Island developers, drawing attention of all the assets of the subdivision, including the golf course. But there is no testimony in the record, either from him or any other purchaser appearing as a witness, that lots were purchased in reliance upon the widespread promotional campaign or literature accompanying the initial opening of the subdivision. There is likewise no evidence from any parties purchasing from appellees that they relied upon representations emanating from Davis Islands, Inc., or successors, to the effect that the golf course would be permanent. The appellant Burnham, in fact, stated that the had heard rumors as early as 1950 concerning the possible subdivision of the golf course, prior to the time he purchased any lots, located near the golf course or elsewhere, but nevertheless made no inquiry at the time of his purchases.
On April 29, 1955, appellees placed of record a plat showing the proposed division of the area, and construction of residences thereon has since begun. The appellants brought this suit as a class action on behalf of 'all persons in like situation' who have purchased lots on the Islands, either facing the streets surrounding the blocks in question, or so located in the subdivision as to have been influenced by the existence of the golf course in the area. The scope of relief sought is limited, in the language of appellants, as follows:
The main issues presented by appellant for determination upon this appeal are, first, 'whether there was a public dedication of the golf course'; second, 'whether the actions of the developers estopped them from claiming that the golf course was not dedicated to the owners of the subdivision'; and third, 'whether the offers of the developers as put forth in their public advertising and sales promotion when accepted by purchasers of lots created a contract between such developers and the purchasers that the golf course would be for the use and benefit of the subdivision and the purchasers.'
It was the opinion of the court below upon the first question that the evidence would not sustain a finding of public dedication on any theory:
Thus, while there is no question that an offer of dedication can be made by a plat filed for record, or by mere...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc.
...thing as dedication to individuals. If there was any dedication, the Court said, it was to the public. 7 See also Burnham v. Davis Islands, Inc., 87 So.2d 97 (Fla.Sup.1956), involving a golf course shown on a There are two Texas cases which need to be distinguished. The first is Evans v. So......
-
Coward v. Hadley
...bearing an interest or profit in the land.... 23 Am.Jur.2d Dedication § 5 (2010) (citations omitted); accord Burnham v. Davis Islands, Inc., 87 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla.1956) ; Marksbury v. State, 322 N.W.2d 281, 285 (Iowa 1982) ; Marks v. Bettendorf's, Inc., 337 S.W.2d 585, 593 (Mo.App.1960) ; K......
-
Easton v. Appler, 87-2995
...314 (Fla.1954); instead, the purchasers' rights are based on principles of law applicable to private property. Burnham v. Davis Islands, Inc., 87 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla.1956); Reiger v. Anchor Post Prods., Inc., 210 So.2d 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968).3 Because we are holding that the developer never ......
-
Estate of Johnston v. TPE Hotels, Inc.
...C.f. Welch v. Point of Americas Condominium Apartments, Inc., 373 So.2d 60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). As the court said in Burnham v. Davis Islands, 87 So.2d 97 (Fla.1956), if the provisions on the face of the recorded plat are such as to negative any particular easement, an easement cannot be im......