Rabinowitz v. Keefer

• Decision Date: 12 January 1931
• Citation: 100 Fla. 1723,132 So. 297
• Parties: RABINOWITZ v. KEEFER et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

132 So. 297

100 Fla. 1723

RABINOWITZ v. KEEFER et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

January 12, 1931

Suit by E. D. Keefer and another against A. J. Rabinowitz and others. From the decree, defendant named appeals.

Affirmed.

ELLIS and BUFORD, JJ., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court.

SYLLABUS

Under our recording statutes, no conveyance of real property shall be good and effectual in law or equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be recorded according to law.

The doctrine has long been recognized in this jurisdiction that the immediate grantee under a quitclaim deed or deed of release occupies the same position in respect to an unrecorded prior deed or mortgage as did his grantor, and takes subject to the same defenses, and is not therefore a bona fide purchaser without notice within the meaning of the recording acts; but this rule will not be extended so as to apply to a subsequent grantee taking by warranty deed.

While there is some justification for the rule that a purchaser who takes a quitclaim deed may properly be regarded as charged with notice of defects and outstanding equities in his grantor's title, it would not be in keeping with the language and spirit of the recording statute to extend this principle to a subsequent purchaser who takes from such grantee by a deed with warranty, and who is entitled to the protection afforded by the recording statute against unrecorded prior conveyances, transfers, or mortgages of which he was without notice.

Under our recording statute, while an unrecorded deed may be deemed good as between the immediate parties, yet, so long as it is withheld from the public records, it is not good and effectual as against a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration and without notice; for, in effect, as to him such deed is ineffectual to convey the absolute title out of the grantor, by reason of the failure to record it.

The object of the recording statute (section 5698, Comp. Gen Laws 1927) is to make patent, to disclose to the world, the holder of the legal title in order that purchasers for value and without notice might be protected against the secret deeds of the grantor.

A person who has withheld his deed or mortgage from the records, thereby allowing a subsequent innocent purchaser for value without notice to be misled into taking substantial steps relying upon the record as it existed, will, as a general rule, be estopped to question the right of such subsequent party. Appeal from Circuit Court Charlotte County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.

COUNSEL

Thomas W. Butler, of Punta Gorda, and Thomas J. Ellis, of Miami, for appellant.

Earl D Farr and J. H. Hancock, both of Punta Gorda, for appellees.

OPINION

BROWN J.

This is an appeal by one of the defendants in the court below, A. J. Rabinowitz, from a final decree in favor of the complainants, E. D. Keefer and Roma T. Raine, after hearing on bill and answer, canceling certain deeds as a cloud upon the title of the complainants.

The material facts are set forth in the final decree, which reads as follows:

'The above entitled cause coming on regularly to be heard on this day, and it appearing that the bill of complaint and the answer of the defendant A. J. Rabinowitz both show the same facts relative to the state of the title to the property involved herein, the cause was heard upon the bill and answer by agreement of counsel for complainants and for the said defendant, and after argument of counsel and due consideration, counsel for said parties agree and the court finds the facts to be:

'1. That the decrees pro confesso entered by the Clerk against the defendants Jacob Edwards, individually and as trustee, Juliana S. Edwards, his wife, Charles E. Sumner, and Samuel C. Rudine, were regularly suffered and entered;

'2. That the complainants, E. D. Keefer and Roma R. Raine, and the defendant A. J. Rabinowitz claim title to the property hereinafter described, from the same common source, that is, from the defendant Jacob Edwards;

'3. That in September, 1902, the said Jacob Edwards, a widower, transferred all his right, title and interest in said lands to Leslie N. Wilkie, by quit-claim deed duly recorded in January, 1903; that thereafter said Leslie N. Wilkie executed and delivered an instrument of conveyance of said lands to John A. Graham, which instrument was duly recorded in 1904; that thereafter said John A. Graham executed and delivered an instrument of conveyance of said lands to A. W. Gilchrist, which instrument was duly recorded in 1904; that thereafter said A. W. Gilchrist executed and delivered an instrument of conveyance of said lands to E. M. Putnam, which instrument was duly recorded in 1905; that thereafter E. M. Putnam and wife transferred their interests in said lands to W. H. Frazier, by quit-claim deed duly recorded in 1908, subject, however, to a mortgage duly recorded, in favor of Barnes & Jessup Company, a corporation; that thereafter, said W. H. Frazier, by deed duly recorded in 1910, conveyed said lands to Lura J. Putnam; that thereafter, said Barnes-Jessup Company foreclosed said mortgage and said lands were conveyed by John W. Burton, Special Master, to said Barnes-Jessup Company, by special master's deed duly recorded in 1910; that thereafter, Southern Naval Stores Company, a corporation, as successor to said Barnes-Jessup Company, conveyed said lands by deed duly recorded in 1913, to Telfair-Stockton Company, a corporation; that thereafter Telfair Stockton Company and E. B. Wells, as Receiver for said Southern Naval Stores Company, conveyed said lands to S. F. Coventry, by deed duly recorded in 1924; that thereafter, in December, 1924, said S. F. Coventry, joined by his wife, conveyed an undivided one-half interest in said lands to Harry N. Kellam, by deed duly recorded in June, 1925; that on December 9, 1924, said S. F. Coventry and wife conveyed an undivided one-half interest in said lands to J. Wesley Coleman and Clarence O. Coleman, by warranty deed duly recorded in March, 1925; that in April, 1925, J. Wesley Coleman quit-claimed an undivided one-fourth interest in said lands to Clarence O. Coleman, which instrument was duly recorded in April, 1925; that thereafter, on July 11, 1925, said Harry N. Kellam conveyed by warranty deed an undivided one-half interest in said property to the complainants, E. D. Keefer and Roma T. Raine, which deed was duly recorded in July, 1925; that on July 6, 1925, said Clarence O. Coleman conveyed by warranty deed an undivided one-half interest in said lands to the complainants, which deed was duly recorded in July, 1925;

'4. The Court further finds, that in the year 1892, said Jacob Edwards duly conveyed said lands by warranty deed, to Charles E. Sumner; that in 1916, said Charles E. Sumner executed and delivered a warranty deed of said lands to Samuel C. Rudine; that in August, 1925, said Samuel C. Rudine executed and delivered a warranty deed of said lands to the defendant A. J. Rabinowitz; that these three last mentioned warranty deeds, though regular in other respects, were not recorded until August, 1925, after the recordation of the deeds of complainants from their immediate grantors; that the said lands are wild and unimproved, and unoccupied;

'5. From such facts, the Court being of opinion and finding the law to be that the complainants, claiming immediately under warranty deeds, but remotely under the quitclaim deed from Jacob Edwards to Leslie N. Wilkie, executed after, but recorded before the original warranty deed from Jacob Edwards under which the defendant Rabinowitz claims, are bona fide purchasers of said lands without notice of the claims of said defendant and his predecessors in title, Sumner and Rudine, and that complainants, as such, are entitled to the protection of the recording acts as against said prior warranty deed from Edwards to Sumner; and that said warranty deeds from Edwards to Sumner, from Sumner to Rudine, and from Rudine to the defendant Rabinowitz, are clouds upon the title of the complainants, and should be cancelled as such; It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:

'1. That the decrees pro confesso entered against the defendants Jacob Edwards, individually and as trustee, Juliana S. Edwards, his wife, Charles E. Sumner, widower, and Samuel C. Rudine, a single man, are hereby severally confirmed;

'2. That the complainants, E. D. Keefer and Roma T. Raine, own and have legal title in fee simple to the lands described as against defendant, as follows, to-wit:

'South Half (S 1/2) of Section Twenty Seven (27), Township Forty One (41) South, Range Twenty Three (23) East, in Charlotte County, Florida;

'3. That the rights, claims, interests, titles and claims of title of the defendants Charles E. Sumner, Samuel C. Rudine, and A. J. Rabinowitz, derived through or under the said deed of Jacob Edwards, made in 1892 to said Charles E. Sumner, and through the said deed of Charles E. Sumner to Samuel C. Rudine, and the deed of said Rudine to the defendant Rabinowitz, recorded in August, 1925, are, severally, hereby cancelled as clouds upon the said title of said complainants, and the Clerk is directed to make notations accordingly on the records of said instruments; and that the title of the said complainants to said lands, in fee simple, is forever quieted and confirmed against the said defendants, Charles E. Sumner, Samuel C. Rudine, and A. J. Rabinowitz, and that said defendants and each of them are forever enjoined and restrained from setting up or attempting to set up, asserting or attempting to assert, any title, right, or claim against the title of said complainants hereby quieted.

'4. That defendant...