Stuart v. Stephanus
| Decision Date | 10 December 1927 |
| Citation | 94 Fla. 1087,114 So. 767 |
| Parties | STUART v. STEPHANUS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by O. L. Stuart against Ernest Stephanus and others to quiet title. From a decree of dismissal, complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Bill in equity cannot be maintained solely to quiet tax title against former record title as cloud on tax title, in absence of attempt to assert record title. In the present state of our law, a bill in equity cannot be maintained for the sole purpose of declaring the validity of a tax deed by quieting the tax title against the former record title upon the theory that the mere existence of the latter casts a cloud upon the former, where there has been no attempt subsequent to the issuance of the tax deed to assert the record title.
Statute providing for declaratory decrees held not to contemplate exploration of procedure before tax deed to declare it valid as against imperfections in antecedent procedure (Laws 1919 c. 7857). Although, under chapter 7857, Laws of 1919, a court of equity may be authorized to construe a tax deed under which complainant claims as grantee and declare his rights thereunder based upon that construction, that statute does not contemplate that the court shall explore the procedure antecedent to the tax deed for the purpose of pronouncing a decree declaratory of the validity of such deed as against imperfections in the antecedent procedure.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Manatee County; W. T Harrison, judge.
Dewey A. Dye, of Bradenton, for appellant.
This is a suit to quiet title. The appellant, who was complainant below, alleges that he is the owner in fee simple and in possession of certain lands in Manatee county, title to which he acquired through a tax deed dated June 3, 1924, issued by the state as grantor to complainant as grantee; said tax deed being recorded in the public records of Manatee county in Deed Book 4 at page 348. The alleged clouds complained of, and against which relief is sought, consist of what is commonly referred to as the 'record title' that is, the chain of title beginning with the original grant of the fee by the United States, and continuing through mesne conveyances of record into one of the defendants who is apparently the person last seized of that fee, upon which chain of record title the claims of the defendants are alleged to be based. Complainant alleges that the chain of record title just mentioned, though apparently valid, is in fact invalid and inferior to complainant's tax title, but that, on account of the suspicion and doubt with which tax deeds are regarded, the existence of the chain of record title into the person formerly owning the fee thereunder cast a cloud on the tax title of complainant and hinders and embarrasses him in his peaceful use and enjoyment thereof.
Besides the general prayer for relief, complainant prays that:
'Any and all deeds and other instruments which may cast a cloud upon your orator's (complainant's) fee-simple title be set aside, canceled, and declared null and void, as a cloud upon your orator's title, and that said deeds or other instruments be canceled, and that your orator's title may be forever quieted against the defendants above named, described, designated, and referred to, and all persons claiming under them, and that your orator may have his rights under said tax deed declared. * * *'
Upon final hearing, the chancellor entered a decree dismissing complainant's bill as being without equity, from which decree this appeal is taken.
When the state executes and delivers a tax deed, it is not a mere conveyance, in invitum, of the title of the former owner. A tax title is not dependent upon the validity of the title of the former owner. It is not a derivative title, nor is it in privity with the former record title. It is not merely the sum of all the existing titles, but, if valid, a tax deed creates in the grantee a new title in the nature of an independent and paramount grant by the sovereign authority made in the exercise of its power to compel a proportionate contribution toward the expense of government by levying a tax against the property and coercing its payment by subjecting the property to sale in default of payment. A sale of the property by the sovereign in the exercise of that power operates upon the land itself and not upon the title by which it had theretofore been held. In the ordinary case, it matters not how many different interests may have been connected with the former title, for, if the tax deed and the antecedent procedure are regular and in conformity with law, the land, accompanied by a new, exclusive, complete, and paramount title, goes to the purchaser.
The validity of a tax title depends upon a strict compliance with the provisions of law under which they are created. These laws are strictly construed in favor of the taxpayer, and such titles are frequently rendered nugatory be errors committed in carrying out the procedure prescribed by law for the creation of such titles. In view of the complexity of the procedure employed in the assessment of taxes, in the sale of lands in default of payment thereof, and in the issuance of a deed to the purchaser, and due also to the careless, inexact or inept manner in which the procedure is carried out in many instances, and due also to the fact that many grave questions may arise even where the greatest care has been taken to follow the law, a tax deed is generally regarded in a practical point of view as amongst...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rabinowitz v. Keefer
... ... being acquired after the tax deed and [100 Fla. 1747] ... asserted against it. See Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 ... Fla. 1087, 114 So. 767 ... If, ... however, it was the purpose of this court in Rabinowitz v ... Houk, supra, to ... ...
-
Rabinowitz v. Houk
...by the removal of claims which constitute a cloud upon the title of the complainant holding under a tax deed.' And in Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087, 114 So. 767, 768, Mr. Justice Strum, writing the opinion 'The bill of complaint in this case does not allege any attempt subsequent to the......
-
Addison v. Benedict, 68--95
...pursuant to the tax deed vested in them only such title and ownership as that owned by Tusch. Addison and Futch cite Stuart v. Stephanus, 1927, 94 Fla. 1087, 114 So. 767, as authority for the proposition that a tax title in Florida is not dependent upon or connected with the former title. O......
-
Baldwin Drainage Dist. v. Brown
...the precision and clarity which distinguish his judicial utterances, Judge Strum, then on the Florida Supreme Court, in Stuart v. Stephanus, 94 Fla. 1087, 114 So. 767,7 laid down the law as to the kind and quality of title conveyed by a tax deed. The subsequent Florida decisions, in no mann......