Cook v. Katiba, 35137

• Decision Date: 21 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 35137,35137
• Citation: 190 So.2d 309
• Parties: Mariam V. Katiba COOK and Audrey M. Katiba, Petitioners, v. J. J. KATIBA and Katiba Holding Company, a Florida corporation, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 309

190 So.2d 309

Mariam V. Katiba COOK and Audrey M. Katiba, Petitioners, v. J. J. KATIBA and Katiba Holding Company, a Florida corporation, Respondents.

No. 35137.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 21, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1966.

Willard Ayres of Greene, Ayres, Swigert & Cluster, Ocala, for petitioners.

Sturgis & Ritter, Ocala, for respondents.

ERVIN, Justice.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari by Audrey M. Katiba and Mariam V. Katiba Cook, her daughter, the sole remaining heirs at law of A. J. Katiba, deceased, to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Cook v. Katiba, 182 So.2d 454, where in a suit to quiet title it was adjudged that Respondent J. J. Katiba was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in a parcel of real estate situated in Marion County, and Petitioners were adjudged to be the owners of the remaining undivided one-half interest therein.

Petitioners contend that we have jurisdiction because of conflict between the instant decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, and a decision of this Court relating to the same principle of law (Trustees of Internal Improvement Fund v. Lobean, Fla., 127 So.2d 98). We find conflict and accept jurisdiction pursuant to Article V. Section 4, Florida Constitution, F.S.A.

It is the basic contention of the Petitioners that the District Court applied to the evidence an incorrect principle relating to the law of estoppel by deed. The facts set forth by the District Court are as follows: (supra, 182 So.2d at p. 455)

'* * * In the year 1921 Assid (Assad) J. Katiba, brother of appellee, purchased an undivided one-half interest in the property involved in this proceeding. In order to avoid his interest being subjected to the claim of a creditor, he arranged for title to the property to be conveyed to his sister, Wardie Katiba, who was then a citizen and resident of Syria. In the year 1923 Assid J. Katiba purchased the remaining undivided one-half interest in the subject property, and in furtherance of his plan to avoid subjecting his property to the claims of his creditors, he arranged for this interest to be conveyed to his brother, the appellee herein. This plan was consummated with the full knowledge and pursuant to the agreement of both brothers. Although both Assid J. Katiba and appellee resided upon and farmed the parcel in question, appellee left the land in 1926 and never thereafter returned to live upon it or assist in its development.

'Assid J. Katiba remained on the property and in 1929 married one of the appellants, Audrey M. Katiba. As a result of this marriage there was born the remaining appellant, Mariam V. Katiba Cook. Although the evidence is conflicting with respect to the extent to which appellee made financial contributions to the development of the property and retirement of the purchase money mortgage thereon, the evidence indicates that such participation, at best, was slight compared to the contributions made by Assid J. Katiba and the appellant members of his family.

'In October of 1942 Assid Katiba requested of and received from appellee a deed of conveyance. This deed described several parcels of land in which appellee owned the entire interest as well as the parcel involved in this proceeding, title to which he held only an undivided one-half interest under the circumstances hereinabove related. The deed was one of bargain and sale containing no limitations as to the estate conveyed, no covenants, warranties, claim of title or restrictions. This deed was duly recorded in the records of Marion County. Thereafter, Assid Katiba and his family continued to live upon and farm the land in question, paying taxes assessed thereon, paying the outstanding purchase maney mortgage, claiming and receiving homestead tax exemption on an allowable portion thereof.

'Assid Katiba's sister, Wardie Katiba, to whom an undivided one-half interest to the land was conveyed in 1921, subsequently moved with her family to South America where she died. Several years prior to his death Assid J. Katiba made a trip to South America for the purpose, among others, of procuring from the heirs of his deceased sister a deed conveying to him whatever interest they claimed in the subject lands but was unsuccessful in this mission.

'Assid Katiba died in 1956 and his brother, Abdullah Katiba who served as executor of his estate, urged the appellant Mariam V. Katiba Cook to go to South America for the purpose of acquiring the interest of Wardie Katiba's heirs in the property involved herein. Such suggestion was rejected by appellant.

'On January 27, 1959, this action was commenced by complaint in chancery in which it was prayed that Appellants' title to the entire interest in the land involved in this proceeding be quieted and confirmed as against any claim or demand which may be asserted by the heirs of Wardie Katiba to whom the undivided one-half interest had been conveyed in 1921. Shortly after commencement of this action appellee was successful in procuring from the defendant heirs of Wardie Katiba a deed conveying to him the undivided one-half interest which they held in the farm property. The complaint was then amended by dismissing the Wardie Katiba heirs as parties defendant and joining appellee as defendant with respect to the issues drawn by the complaint.' (Emphasis supplied.)

At this point we shall focus our attention on the issues confronting us in this cause: Whether the District Court has correctly applied either the principles of estoppel by deed or of equitable estoppel. After thorough analysis and study we find that we do not agree with the result reached herein by the District Court. We do not believe that the pertinent principles and language of this court in Lobean, supra, have been properly utilized and applied.

In Lobean we discussed and defined the doctrines of legal and equitable estoppel as follows (127 So.2d at page 102):

'(3, 4) Legal estoppel or estoppel by deed is defined as a bar which precludes a party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against others and their privies any right or title in derogation of the deed, or from denying the truth of any material fact asserted therein. In other words, legal estoppel contemplates that if I execute a deed purporting to convey an estate or land which I do not own Or one that is larger than I own and I later acquire such estate or land, then the subsequently acquired land or estate will by estoppel pass to my grantee. (Emphasis supplied.)

'(6, 7) Equitable estoppel as applied to land titles is a different thing. It depends on the conduct of the parties for its efficacy. It is not concerned with the language of the instrument and may actually deny the legal effect of the deed. In Florida Land Investment...