Voss v. Forgue
| Decision Date | 04 January 1956 |
| Citation | 84 So.2d 563 |
| Parties | F. G. VOSS, Appellant, v. A. E. FORGUE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Noble C. Doss, Gulfport, for appellant.
Charles J. Schuh and Son, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Prior to May 15, 1954, appellee acquired title to Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, F. J. Burn's Realty Company's Replat as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County. Appellant acquired title to Lot 16, Block 1, same subdivision. On or about May 15, 1954, appellee secured a building permit to construct a dwelling on Lot 15 and immediately commenced construction on Lot 16, thinking he was on Lot 15. On June 16, 1954, he discovered his mistake and undertook to purchase Lot 16 from the owner but continued construction of the dwelling. July 8 he received notice from the owner to do so and suspended construction.
Appellee then filed suit in equity alleging the mistake and prayed that appellant be permitted to purchase the improvements placed on Lot 15 at a fair value or to convey said lot to appellee at its reasonable value. An answer was tendered denying the material allegations of the complaint and praying that defendant be awarded the improvements without compensation to the plaintiff, or in the alternative, that the plaintiff be required to remove all improvements from the property. At final hearing the chancellor ordered appellant to convey all his right, title and interest in Lot 16 to appellee and that appellee convey all his right, title and interest in Lot 15 to appellant. The final decree also ordered plaintiff to pay defendant $150 and court costs. We are confronted with an appeal from this decree.
The question for determination challenges the correctness of the chancellor's decree.
Appellant contends that this question should have a negative answer because the action was non-statutory, that appellee was grossly negligent in looking to the location of his property, that he did not have color of title to Lot 16 and there was complete absence of fraud or acquiescence with knowledge on the part of the true owner. This contention is supported by the common law rule, the effect of which is that improvements of a permanent nature placed on or attached to land without the consent of the owner, become part of the realty and title thereto is vested in the owner. McCreary v. Lake Boulevard Sponge Exchange Co., 133 Fla. 740, 183 So. 7. See also Annotations, 81 Am.St.Rep. 166.
We have not before been called on to adjudicate this point but investigation reveals respectable authority both ways, depending largely on the circumstances and the equities shown in the particular case. Our attention is directed to what appellant contends to be the majority rule in 104 A.L.R. 580, as follows:
'In a bare majority of the jurisdictions of this country wherein the question has clearly received consideration,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Somerville v. Jacobs
...Jurisprudence (12th Ed.) §§ 799a, 1237; Bright v. Boyd, 1 Story, 478, Fed.Cas.No.1875; Id., 2 Story, 605, Fed.Cas.No.1876.' In Voss v. Forque, Fla., 84 So.2d 563, the court held that where a landowner mistakenly constructed a dwelling on a lot adjacent to one he owned and the two adjoining ......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Krasnek, 33312
...of mutual mistake, it would seem that the mistake was really unilateral in the same sense as here. In these and other cases, Voss v. Forgue, 84 So.2d 563 (Fla.1956); Wicker v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 106 So.2d 550 (Fla.1958); Crosby v. Andrews, 61 Fla. 554, 55 So. 57 (19......
-
Toalson v. Madison
...provisions of the statute. There are many cases from other jurisdictions in harmony with our opinion herein, among which are Voss v. Forgue, Fla. 84 So.2d 563; Ollig v. Eagles, 347 Mich 49, 78 N.W.2d 553, 557, et seq.; Bryant v. Carville, 134 Me. 493, 182 A. 162, 164; Murphy v. Benson, Tex.......
-
Brown v. Davis, BF-112
...the final judgment Brown appeals, raising several arguments which we find to be meritorious. Based on our interpretation of Voss v. Forgue, 84 So.2d 563 (Fla.1956), we affirm an equitable exchange of tracts. However, since we believe that Mrs. Brown is an innocent party, we suggest several ......