Paxson v. Collins

• Decision Date: 13 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 57-345,57-345
• Citation: 100 So.2d 672
• Parties: James L. PAXSON, Jr., and Amelia P. Farquhar, Appellants, v. LeRoy COLLINS, Governor, Ray E. Green, Comptroller, J. Edwin Larson, Treasurer, Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General and Nathan Mayo, Commissioner of Agriculture, as and composing The Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, a public corporation of the State of Florida, Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Charles F. Harvey and Juanita Harvey, his wife, and Helen A. Arnold, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 672

100 So.2d 672

James L. PAXSON, Jr., and Amelia P. Farquhar, Appellants, v. LeRoy COLLINS, Governor, Ray E. Green, Comptroller, J. Edwin Larson, Treasurer, Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General and Nathan Mayo, Commissioner of Agriculture, as and composing The Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, a public corporation of the State of Florida, Dade County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and Charles F. Harvey and Juanita Harvey, his wife, and Helen A. Arnold, Appellees.

No. 57-345.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 13, 1958.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1958.

Sinclair & Nicholson, and Linton R. Lovett, Miami, for appellants.

Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., Fred M. Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles Vocelle, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for appellee Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of State of Florida.

Horton & Horton, and Martin Fine, Miami, for appellees Charles F. Harvey and Juanita Harvey, his wife, and Helen A. Arnold.

Sturrup & Gautier, Miami, for appellee Central & Southern Florida Flood Control District.

Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, and Thomas Britton, Miami, for appellee Dade County.

E. HARRIS DREW, Associate Judge.

Appellants own land in Dade County bordering on navigable water. The original conveyance out of the United States described the property as government lots, the southerly boundary of each being shown on the surveys at that time to border on navigable water. In their complaint to quiet title they allege that subsequent to the date of the acquisition of the said land from the United States by their predecessors in title, said lots had increased in size by the gradual imperceptible and natural action of the waters adjacent thereto in depositing soil along the foreshore and that such accretion had materially increased the area of said government lots; the complaint described such accreted lands and it was then alleged that certain defendantsTherein nemed, who owned adjacent government lots claimed a portion of said accreted lands had accreted to their uplands instead of appellants' and that such claim constituted a cloud, doubt or suspicion upon the title to plaintiffs' said lands. Many of the defendants who were alleged to claim some right, title or interest in the lands that had allegedly accreted to plaintiffs were residents of Dade County but many were non-residents or their residences were alleged to have been unknown. The Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund were named defendants as was the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District. As a basis for naming both bodies defendants the complaint alleged that the Trustees had conveyed an easement over a portion of the accreted lands to the Flood Control District, that such easement was recorded in Dade County and constituted a cloud upon the title to plaintiffs' lands. Moreover, the complaint alleged that the Trustees, claiming to own plaintiffs' land, had approved a proposed sale of other parts of said accreted lands to third parties and that a conveyance of said lands would issue unless said Trustees were restrained from so doing. The complaint in other respects was in the usual form of a complaint to quiet title and in addition to the plaintiffs' prayer that the title to the land be quieted as against the claims of all of said defendants, including the Trustees, it prayed that said Trustees be enjoined from making my conveyance of said accreted lands or otherwise encumbering the same.

The Trustees moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the venue was in Leon County and not in Dade County. Mason Lumber Co. v. Lee, 126 Fla. 371, 171 So. 332; Gay v. Ogilvie, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 525; Gaulden v. Gay, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 580; McCarty v. Lichtenberg, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 655; Florida Real Estate Commission v. State ex rel. Bodner, Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 290; Larson v. R. K. Cooper, Inc., Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 757; East Coast Grocery Company v. Collins, Fla. 1957, 96 So.2d 793. The motion of the Trustees was granted, the cause was dismissed as to them and the matter is now before us on certiorari for the purpose of determining the correctness of that ruling. The motion of the Trustees deals with said lands as 'submerged sovereignty lands' and it is their theory, presented in the motion and argued orally and in the briefs, that plaintiffs have no title to said lands and that, therefore, they the Trustees, 'cannot comprehend how the plaintiffs can seek to quiet title to lands when they do not hold title or right thereto.' If this theory be sound their conclusion would be, but the theory is unsound for the reason that, on the motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint are taken as true, and the complaint concerns the title to accreted lands alleged to be vested in the plaintiffs. In Mexico Beach Corporation v. St. Joe Paper Co., District Court of Appeal, 1st District, 97 So.2d 708, 710, a case factually quite similar to this one, the able opinion prepared by Judge Wigginton for the Court concluded on overwhelming authority, including numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida, that:

'In the United States, 'The rule governing additions to land bounded by a river, lake or sea, had been much discussed and variously settled by usage and by positive law. Almost all jurists and legislators, however, both ancient and modern, have agreed that the owner of the land thus bounded entitled to these additions. By some, the rule has been vindicated on the principles of natural justice, that he who sustains the burden of losses and of repairs, imposed by the contiguity of waters, ought to receive whatever benefits they may bring by accretion; by others, it is derived from the principle of public policy, that it is the interest of the community that all land should have an owner, and most convenient that insensible additions to the shores should follow the title to the shore itself.' The commonlaw rule which vests title to soil formed along navigable waters by accretion or reliction in owners of abutting lands is the rule applicable in Florida.'

The Trustees place great reliance upon East Coast Grocery Company v. Collins, supra, and similar cases holding that an injunction suit against the Trustees could not be brought in a county other than Leon (the seat of the Capital) under the guise of a suit to quiet title. This contention, however, is wholly without merit under the allegations of the complaint in this cause. The complaint is not a suit for injunction in the guise of a suit to...