Seaside Properties, Inc. v. State Road Dept., 65--342

• Decision Date: 27 September 1966
• Docket Number: No. 65--342,65--342
• Parties: SEASIDE PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT of the State of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 391

190 So.2d 391

SEASIDE PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 65--342.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 27, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 20, 1966.

Guion T. DeLoach, Miami, for appellant.

P. A. Pacyna, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff below, Seaside Properties, Inc. (hereinafter called Seaside) from a final decree for the defendant in the action, State Road Department of the State of Florida (hereinafter called Road Department).

The question at issue between the parties concerned the ownership of a section of State Road 4--A, also known as Old Dixie Highway, in Monroe County, Florida, to which Seaside claimed ownership by a deed dated September 26, 1951, and by virtue of adverse possession for more than seven years. The trial court found that title to the property in question was vested in the Road Department. This appeal followed.

The Road Department contends that it was the owner of the land in question under the provisions of Section 337.31, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., inasmuch as it had maintained the same for more than four years.

Section 337.31(1) provides as follows:

'Whenever any road constructed by any of the several counties or incorporated municipalities or by the department shall have been maintained, kept in repair or worked continuously and uninterruptedly for a period of four years by any county, municipality, or by the department, either separately or jointly, such road shall be deemed to be dedicated to the public to the extent in width which has been actually worked for the period aforesaid, whether the same has ever been formally established as a public highway or not. Such dedication shall be conclusively presumed to vest in the particular county in which the road is located, if it be a county road, or in the particular municipality, if it be a municipal street or road, or in the state, if it be a road in the state highway system or state park road system all right, title, easement, and appurtenances therein and thereto, whether there be any record of conveyance, dedication or appropriation to the public use or not.'

There was substantial competent evidence in the record to indicate that the road was constructed and completed around the year 1928, and had been continuously maintained for more than four years by the Road Department. When the facts establish that a road has been kept in repair and worked continuously for a period of four years by the State Road Department, the title thereto Vests in the Road Department to the extent in width that the road has been worked and kept in repair. It is clear, therefore, that even if there were no original deed of the land in question to the Road Department, as claimed by Seaside, the title to the aforesaid land has vested in the Road Department under the statute. See: Bridgehead Land Co. for Use and Benefit of River's Edge v. Hale, 1940, 145 Fla. 389, 199 So. 361; and Palm Beach County v. South Florida Conservancy Dist., 1936, 126 Fla. 170, 170 So. 630.

Seaside contends in the alternative, that even if the Road Department were the owner of the land in question, the evidence proves that it has (1) abandoned the same; or (2) that Seaside has acquired title to the land by reason of adverse possession.

The question of abandonment and nonuse was resolved adversely to Seaside by the trial court, although there was conflicting evidence concerning the same. The question is based primarily on a statement of an engineer for the Road Department that the road had been abandoned, and other evidence that would show an abandonment.

In 25 Am.Jur. Highways, § 111, it is stated:

'The ancient maxim, 'once a highway, always a highway,' which has frequently been quoted by the courts, is subject to many exceptions and qualifications. In so far as the rights of the public are concerned, the...