City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co.
Decision Date | 05 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 51775,51775 |
Citation | 364 So.2d 439 |
Parties | CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Southeast Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Hugh E. Matheson, Jr., Individually, and Sally S. Dommerich, formerly Sally S. Matheson, Individually, Respondents. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Guy B. Bailey, Jr. and Jesse C. Jones of Bailey & Dawes, Miami, for petitioner.
Wm. P. Simmons, Jr. and Eric B. Meyers of Shutts & Bowen, Miami, and Marion E. Sibley of Sibley, Giblin, Levenson & Glaser, Miami Beach, for St. Joe Paper Co.
Joseph P. Klock, Jr. of Steel, Hector & Davis, Miami, for Southeast Properties, Inc.
Edmund P. Russo of Russo, Van Doren & Allen, Coral Gables, for Hugh E. Matheson, Jr.
Nancy G. Linnan, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and J. Kendrick Tucker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee for Reubin O'D. Askew, as Governor of the State of Florida.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. of Florida, amicus curiae.
Chesterfield Smith, Tallahassee, Julian Clarkson, Fort Myers, of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for amicus curiae.
J. Richard Harris of Scott, Burk, Royce, Harris & Loucks, Palm Beach, for The Florida Bar, amicus curiae.
This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that its decision reported in 347 So.2d 622 is one which involves a question of great public interest. We have jurisdiction. See Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 3(b)(3).
Petitioner has attacked the constitutionality of Florida Statutes, Chapter 712, the Marketable Record Title Act. Also involved in this case is the question of whether an interloping or wild deed could constitute a root of title.
Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the city, filed a complaint to quiet its title to a tract of land on the north side of the Miami River at or near the river's entrance into Biscayne Bay. Upon motion, the amended complaint was dismissed on the ground that it appeared upon the face of the complaint that the city's claim was barred by the Marketable Record Title Act. The District Court of Appeal, in its opinion, recited the following history of the title, as described in the city's complaint:
'containing fourteen acres, more or less, together with all and singular the riparian rights and submerged lands appertaining thereto.'
The Marketable Record Title Act is a comprehensive plan for reform in conveyancing procedures. It is a curative act in that it may operate to correct certain defects which have arisen in the execution of instruments in the chain of title. Curative statutes reach back on past events to correct errors or irregularities and to render valid and effective attempted acts which would be otherwise ineffective for the purpose the parties intended. They operate to complete a transaction which the parties intended to accomplish but carried out imperfectly.
The Marketable Record Title Act is also a statute of limitations in that it requires stale demands to be asserted within a reasonable time after a cause of action has accrued. It prescribes a period within which a right may be enforced.
The Marketable Record Title Act is also a recording act in that it provides for a simple and easy method by which the owner of an existing old interest may preserve it. If he fails to take the step of filing the notice as provided, he has only himself to blame if his interest is extinguished. The legislature did not intend to arbitrarily wipe out old claims and interests without affording a means of preserving them and giving a reasonable period of time within which to take the necessary steps to accomplish that purpose.
This court in Mahood v. Bessemer Properties, Inc., 154 Fla. 710, 18 So.2d 775 (1944), held that the legislature may legitimately use a recording statute as a means of getting rid of stale claims. Florida Statutes 695.20, enacted in 1941, voided contracts for the purchase of lands which were left by the collapse of the Florida Real Estate boom of the 1920's. Under the terms of the statute, persons who had contracted to purchase land prior to a certain date, but had not placed a deed on record or obtained a decree and were not in possession, were declared to have no interest in the land unless they had given notice of their claims by recordation in one of several ways specified and within six months from the adoption of the statute.
Catsman, the Marketable Record Title Act and Uniform Title Standards, Volume 3, Florida Real Property Practice (1965) Section 6.2 describes the nature of the act as follows:
This court has acknowledged the constitutionality of the act in Marshall v. Hollywood, Inc., 236 So.2d 114 (Fla.1970), and Odom v. Deltona Corporation, 341 So.2d 977 (Fla.1976). We now specifically hold that the Marketable Record Title Act is constitutional.
Courts of other states have ruled that similar marketable title acts are constitutional. See Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 83 N.W.2d 800 (1957) ( ); Tesdell v. Hanes, 248 Iowa 742, 82 N.W.2d 119, 123 (1957) (); Lane v. Traveler's Insurance Company, 230 Iowa 973, 299 N.W. 553, 555 (1941) () See also discussion in Note, Constitutionality of Market Title Legislation, 47 Iowa L.Rev. 413, 428-29 (1962).
Other decisions by this court upholding the constitutionality of similar legislative enactments make it clear that the Act can constitutionally be applied to bar the city's claim. In Mahood v. Bessemer Properties, Inc., supra, this court upheld the constitutionality of the application, to a purchaser under a 1925 contract, of a 1941 act which removed from titles to realty the clouds of unperformed contracts of record unless suit be brought within six months. In In Re Estate of Brown, 117 So.2d 478 (Fla.1960), this court held constitutional the application, to a claim arising before its passage, of a 1953 statute which barred claims against an estate after three years. In H. K. L. Realty Corporation v. Kirtley, 74 So.2d 876 (Fla.1954), this court upheld the constitutionality of the application of a twenty-year statute of limitations to mortgages on a given date after one year from such given date on the ground that a reasonable time is provided for the enforcement of a cause of action before the restriction becomes effective. See Buck v. Triplett, 159 Fla. 772, 32 So.2d 753, 754-55 (1947) where the court said:
"We are committed to the rule that statutes of this nature (statute of limitations) are good where a reasonable time is allowed to prosecute an asserted right."
and Campbell v. Horne, 147 Fla. 523, 3 So.2d 125, 126 (1941) where the court said:
"The law is well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and in other jurisdictions, that statutes of limitation affecting existing rights are not unconstitutional if a reasonable time is given for the enforcement of the right before the bar takes effect."
The city contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Slooten v. Larsen, Docket Nos. 62256
...Compiled Laws Ann. § 43-30-8.1. Marketable title acts have been upheld in the face of constitutional challenges, see Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So.2d 439 (Fla.1978), Tesdell v. Hanes, 248 Iowa 742, 82 N.W.2d 119 (1957), Wichelman v. Messner, 250 Minn. 88, 83 N.W.2d 800 (1957), Aigler, ......
-
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
...lands could be perfected by MRTA prior to the effective date of the 1978 amendment." Id. at 9. See also City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So.2d 439, 445, 449 (Fla.1978), appeal dismissed, 441 U.S. 939, 99 S.Ct. 2153, 60 L.Ed.2d 1040 The issue of whether MRTA is applicable to sovereign......
-
Hyland v. Kirkman
...could in fact serve as valid roots of title from which a chain of title could flow, so as to bar previous claims. See Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So.2d 439 (Fla.1978), app. dism. 411 U.S. 939, 99 S.Ct. 2153, 60 L.Ed.2d 1040; Mobbs v. City of Lehigh, 655 P.2d 547 However, a number of oth......
-
Cirelli v. Ent
...marketability by extinguishing old interests of record not specifically claimed or reserved." Id. at 1171. In City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So.2d 439 (Fla.1978), the court said that "[t]he Marketable Record Title Act is a comprehensive plan for reform in conveyancing procedures. I......
-
CHAPTER 4 DORMANT MINERAL ACTS: POSSIBLE GAME CHANGERS?
...the constitutionality of the Oklahoma MRTA.For other cases upholding acts similar to Oklahoma's, see City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1978), appeal dism'd, 441 U.S. 939 (1979); Amana Society v. Colony Inn, Inc., 315 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1982); Town of Brookline v. Carey,......
-
The reinstatement of covenants, conditions, and restrictions extinguished by The Marketable Record Title Act.
...the CC&Rs, and, therefore, the CC&Rs are considered part of the "root of title." (5) City of Miami v. St. Joe Paper Co., 364 So. 2d 439, 442 (Fla. (6) Id. (7) Joseph E. Adams. Title Claims Issue Looming For State Associations, FORT MYERS NEWS PRESS (2004). (8) Gary Poliakoff, MRTA, ......