Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corp.

Decision Date02 May 1958
PartiesHamilton C. FORMAN and Charles R. Forman, Appellants, v. FLORIDA LAND HOLDING CORPORATION, a dissolved Florida corporation et al., Appellees.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

Carl A. Hiaasen and McCune, Hiaasen, Kelley & Crum, Fort Lauderedale, for appellants.

Smathers, Thompson, Maxwell & Dyer, Miami, Saunders, Curtis, Ginestra & Gore, John U. Lloyd and C. L. Chancey, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

THORNAL, Justice.

Appellants Forman, who were plaintiffs below, seek reversal of a final decree dismissing their complaint in a suit to quiet title.

The determining point is whether the plaintiffs below were precluded from maintaining their suit by reason of the doctrines of res judicata, estoppel by judgment, or the rule of stare decisis.

On March 21, 1955, appellants Forman filed their complaint to quiet the title to a parcel of land located in Government Lot 1, Section 24, Township 50 South, Range 42 East, Broward County. For convenience only we will refer to the parcel as Government Lot 1. The Formans grounded their title on a conveyance from one DeBeltrand who had acquired the described parcel by virtue of a county tax deed issued December 1, 1947. The tax deed was predicated upon a county tax certificate for 1944 taxes together with the redemption of certificates covering taxes for the years 1943, 1945 and 1946.

All of the appellees claim rights under Florida Land Holding Corporation, now a dissolved Florida corporation. The appellees claim title to Government Lot 2, Section 24, Township 50 South, Range 40 East.

This makes necessary a brief description of the relationship between the two parcels. According to the original government survey of 1870 it appears that Government Lot 1 was bounded on the East by the Atlantic Ocean. It was bounded on the West by a body of water known as New River Sound. Government Lot 2 was located immediately West of New River Sound. It is apparent, therefore, on the basis of the original government survey that Government Lot 2, claimed by the appellees, was separated from the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, first by New River Sound, and then by Government Lot 1.

On May 25, 1945 Florida Land Holding Corporation filed its complaint against J. W. Hamm, et al., in the Circuit Court of Broward County. By its complaint in that suit Florida Land Holding Corporation alleged itself to be the owner of the above mentioned Government Lot 2 and other lands. The owners of record of the above described Government Lot 1 were named parties-defendant. In the complaint in the Hamm suit it was alleged that Government Lot 1 had disappeared by a process of erosion, that Florida Land Holding Corporation had acquired the West one-half of New River Sound by process of accretion and that as a result of these two forces of nature, the Eastern boundary of Government Lot 2 had become the Atlantic Ocean.

In the Hamm suit the Chancellor agreed with the contentions of Florida Land Holding Corporation after a strenuous contest. He held that the actual physical status of the property was simply that Government Lot 1 and the East half of New River Sound had disappeared as the result of natural conditions and that the Atlantic Ocean had become the natural Eastern boundary of Government Lot 2. As a result of this condition he further held that the owner of Goverment Lot 2 was entitled to all riparian rights in the waters and submerged lands of the abutting ocean. The Tax Assessor of Broward County was a party-defendant to the Hamm suit. The final decree in the Hamm suit was entered March 21, 1947, and the Tax Assessor was enjoined from further assessing any county taxes against the above mentioned Government Lot 1. This decree of the Chancellor was appealed to this Court and was affirmed without opinion. Hamm v. Florida Land Holding Corporation, 160 Fla. 340, 34 So.2d 312.

It becomes necessary now to relate the factual basis of appellant Forman's claim as related to dates involved in the Hamm litigation. It will be recalled that the Hamm complaint was filed May 25, 1945. No lis pendens was placed on record. On June 1, 1945, Bailiwick, Inc. acquired from Broward County a tax certificate covering delinquent county taxes on the portion of Government Lot 1 claimed by the appellants for taxes for the year 1944. In September of 1947, after the entry of the final decree in the Hamm litigation in March, 1947, Forman's predecessor in title acquired the June 1, 1945 tax certificate as well as tax certificates for delinquent taxes for the years 1943, 1945 and 1946. The certificate dated June 1, 1945 covered the delinquent taxes due in 1944.

Thereafter Forman's predecessor in title applied for a tax deed on the disputed portion of Government Lot 1 pursuant to statutory notice. Neither Forman nor any of his predecessors were made parties to the Hamm litigation. It is obvious that they do not claim under any of the parties named in the Hamm suit. After acquiring the title under the December, 1947 tax...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Calabro v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 18, 2008
    ...application of legal principles unless for some compelling reason it becomes appropriate to recede therefrom." Forman v. Fla. Land Holding Corp., 102 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla.1958). In North Florida Health & Counseling Services, Inc. v. State, 866 So.2d 612, 637 (Fla.2003), this Court explained ......
  • Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • May 18, 2017
    ...neither may use it in a subsequent action."). Nor could they rely on the opinion's factual findings. Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corp. , 102 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla. 1958) ("Stare decisis relates only to the determination of questions of law, [and] ... has no relation whatever to the binding......
  • Shaw v. Jain
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • November 22, 2005
    ...are sufficiently similar. See Cusick v. City of Neptune Beach, 765 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citing Forman v. Fla. Land Holding Corp., 102 So.2d 596 (Fla.1958)); Adelman Steel Corp. v. Winter, 610 So.2d 494, 502-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Moreover, "[i]t is elementary that the holdin......
  • State v. Hayes
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 11, 1976
    ...Courts § 187. The purpose of the rule is to preserve harmony and stability and predictability in the law, Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corporation, 102 So.2d 596 (Fla.1958); Old Plantation Corp. v. Maule Industries, Inc., 68 So.2d 180 (Fla.1953), See 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 183 et seq. The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT