Goldtrap v. Bryan
| Decision Date | 17 December 1954 |
| Citation | 77 So.2d 446 |
| Parties | H. R. GOLDTRAP, Appellant, v. Juanita BRYAN, G. N. Albritton et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr., Wauchula, Carver & Langston, Lakeland, for appellant.
Treadwell & Treadwell, E. D. Treadwell, Jr., Arcadia, for appellees.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Goldtrap from an order of the circuit court dismissing a third amended bill of complaint without leave further to amend.
The third amended complaint seeks to quiet title to certain described realty in the plaintiff. It alleges that in 1932 title to the property was vested in the Wright Estate, from which common source the claims of plaintiff and defendants derive. In 1932 the city limits of the City of Bowling Green included the described property, and the City of Bowling Green grought a tax foreclosure suit against it, resulting in a master's deed conveying the land to the City, in 1932. The Wright Estate continued to claim ownership of and to pay taxes upon the land up to 1945, in which year the Wright Estate deeded the interest so claimed to Doyle E. Carlton, Jr., and wife, by warranty deed. On October 29, 1948, Carlton and wife executed a warranty deed to plaintiff-appellant. On March 6, 1952 the interest of the City obtained by the foreclosure 'was for a valuable consideration duly and regularly conveyed by the City' to Doyle E. Carlton, Jr., and on July 1, 1952 Carlton and wife executed a quitclaim deed of the property to plaintiff-appellant.
Plaintiff further alleged, inter alia, that defendants deraigned their title through a quitclaim deed executed in 1943 by the Mayor and Clerk of the City of Bowling Green, but that this deed was void because of the following circumstances:
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the Charter of the City of Bowling Green authorizing the city council to prescribe the manner for making a conveyance of any real property belonging to said city, the city council, prior to the year 1943, did by ordinance provide that property belonging to the city shall be disposed of only in the following manner, namely, by deed signed by the Mayor and attested to by the clerk after said conveyance had been authorized by a resolution passed by the majority of said council in regular or special session; that the said ordinance was passed and in effect prior to and at the time of the execution of said deed and has since remained in effect and has made the passing of a resolution by said city council authorizing such conveyance a condition precedent to such conveyance; that notwithstanding said ordinance and charter provisions as above stated, the deed from the city to H. B. Bailey was executed by the said W. J. Case as Mayor and E. S. Holman as Clerk, without any such previous authorization by the city council by resolution or otherwise, and that the matter of the conveyance of said tract of land by said unauthorized deed has never since been ratified or acquiesced in by the city council.'
Appellant poses for our determination the sole question: 'Is a deed executed by officers of a municipal corporation effective to convey title to realty wherein said deed is executed without the adoption of a resolution by the city council as required by law?'
It is clear from an examination of the record, and the foregoing query suggests, that no charge is made that the city lacked power or authority to convey title to the realty involved herein, but rather that it exercised its power in an irregular manner by failing to comply with the requirements antecedent to the execution of a deed of conveyance which are prescribed by ordinance passed pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of the City's charter.
Counsel for appellant contends that the quitclaim deed from the City of Bowling Green to H. B. Bailey which was executed in the year 1943 by W....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zurstrassen v. Stonier
...v. Sapp, 142 Fla. 166, 194 So. 328, 330 (1940). A quitclaim deed provides no warranties of the validity of title. See Goldtrap v. Bryan, 77 So.2d 446, 448 (Fla.1954). Therefore it is hard to say as a matter of law that Stonier could have relied on the validity of title conveyed through a qu......
-
Smith v. Berberich
...property described of which grantor is seived or possessed, if any, at the time, rather than the property itself.' See, also, Goldtrap v. Bryan, Fla., 77 So.2d 446; State v. Kemmerer, 14 S.D. 169, 84 N.W. 771; Hulke v. International Mfg. Co., 14 Ill.App.2d 5, 142 N.E.2d 717; Roddy v. Roddy,......
-
Miami Holding Corp. v. Matthews, 74--979
...the grantor has no interest in the land described at the time of conveyance, the quitclaim conveys nothing to the grantee. Goldtrap v. Bryan, Fla.1954, 77 So.2d 446 and 10 Fla.Jur. Deeds § 168 Title to Lot 12, Block 8 of J. G. Head Farms, Unit 'A' being vested in Lottie Morrrison at the tim......
-
Sanchez v. Powell, 3D18-2347
...has no interest in the land described at the time of conveyance, the quitclaim conveys nothing to the grantee.") (citing Goldtrap v. Bryan, 77 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1954) ; 10 Fla. Jur. Deeds § 168 ...