City of Tarpon Springs v. Koch
| Decision Date | 08 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 2771,2771 |
| Citation | 142 So.2d 763 |
| Parties | CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Carl E. KOCH and Paula Koch, his wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
J. E. Satterfield of Satterfield and Stamathis, Tarpon Springs, for appellant.
O. K. Reaves of Mabry, Reaves, Carlton, Fields & Ward, Tampa, for appellees.
This is an appeal by Plaintiff-Appellant from a Final Summary Decree dismissing a Complaint and granting affirmative relief prayed for in Defendants-Appellees' Counterclaim. The parties are referred to in their capacities occupied below.
By Complaint filed May 3, 1961, City of Tarpon Springs sought to recover the balance of 799 lots still remaining in the name of Defendant, CARL E. KOCH, which lots were owned by the City in 1949, and in that year, without compliance with charter requirement of freeholder election to either buy or sell realty, deeded to Defendant CARL E. KOCH. Complaint further sought accounting for the price of some of these lots sold by Defendants, offering credit for purchase price, taxes or other items to which Defendants might be equitably entitled.
Defendants' Answer admitted charter requirement and noncompliance therewith, defending by alleging lack of actual knowledge of the requirement on their part. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging City's non-compliance with charter provision requiring freeholder election to authorize City's purchase of the lots, Defendants' payment of taxes, expenditures raising defense of laches and estoppel by deed. Crossclaim incorporated prayer that City's grantors, Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund, be made parties and title quieted against them as well as against City.
Plaintiff City filed simultaneously, (1) Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, (2) Motion to Strike Portions of Answer and Counterclaim, and (3) Answer to Counter-claim. The reply admitted no election was held prior to City's purchase from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund under the Murphy Act, plead lack of knowledge as to taxes paid, and took issue with other allegations.
Answer of Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund set out deed from them to City, alleged it was in good faith on their part, and sought no relief.
Defendants filed Motion for Summary Judgment alleging no material issue of fact existed and they were entitled to Judgment as a matter of law. Affidavit with Motion alleged some advertising expense and payment of taxes to Plaintiff for eleven years.
Without ruling on Plaintiff's Motions to Strike and Dismiss, the Court entered Summary Decree denying relief prayed by City, and quieting title to the property, as between the parties, in Defendants.
The only matter factually unresolved was an immaterial one, namely: the extent to which Defendants may have advertised their development project. The Board of Commissioners, in the Resolution authorizing the deed, makes reference to the Defendants' intention to conduct some type of advertising that would inure to the benefit of the City, but nothing specific is shown as part of the agreement by which the Court can measure what was or was not to be done in this regard. Thus, since the advertising is not a consideration supporting the transaction, it is not a material issue and, consequently, not of concern here.
The Resolution by Plaintiff's Board of Commissioners, directing its officers to execute the deed, recited properties would be returned to the tax roll that had not been there for ten years; Defendants were paying back taxes on other properties in the City in addition to the purchase price of the lots; that a total of $50,000.00 in cash was being paid which would provide funds for needed municipal services that would not otherwise be available; Defendants promised to make certain advertisements that would be of benefit to the City and it would be incumbent upon them to do so since it would be to their advantage.
After execution of the deed, the Defendants sold some of the lots to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coastal Petroleum Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.
...in the deed); see also Florida Board of Forestry v. Lindsay, 205 So.2d 358, 361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967), and City of Tarpon Springs v. Koch, 142 So.2d 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), cert. discharged, 155 So.2d 151 (Fla. Again, in addressing this issue, the Trustees urge that the lands were sovereignty ......
-
City of Tarpon Springs v. Koch.
...151 155 So.2d 151 CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS v. KOCH. No. 31920. Supreme Court of Florida. April 1963. Certiorari discharged without opinion. 142 So.2d 763. ...