Dadd v. Houde
176 So.3d 347, 2015 WL 5245138, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 13450 (2015)
Rule of Law:
Under the 1974 version of section 95.16 of the Florida Statutes, adverse possession under color of title for a contiguous strip of land could be established through a substantial enclosure for the statutory period, even without a written instrument specifically describing the disputed property, and once vested, this title passes to successors.
Facts:
- Ann Dadd owns the property located at 701 Catherine Street, Key West, Florida, and Richard Houde owns the adjacent property at 703 Catherine Street.
- A substantial fence has enclosed a strip of land, approximately six and one-half feet wide and seventy-nine and one-half feet long, contiguous to the Dadd property, since 1976 or earlier.
- The disputed strip of land is within the legal description of Richard Houde’s property.
- Richard Wood owned the property at 701 Catherine Street and maintained the fence enclosing the disputed strip from 1976 until at least 1983.
- Ann Dadd acquired the property at 701 Catherine Street by warranty deed from the Estate of Richard Wood in 1989.
- Richard Houde acquired his property at 703 Catherine Street by warranty deed in 2001, which included the disputed strip within its legal description.
- In 2010, as Ann Dadd undertook improvements on the fence, Richard Houde contested the placement of the fence and the location of the property line.
Procedural Posture:
- In 2010, Ann Dadd filed suit in a Florida circuit court (trial court) to quiet title of the disputed strip by adverse possession.
- Richard Houde counterclaimed in the circuit court to eject Dadd from the disputed strip based on his written conveyance.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court held in favor of Houde on the strength of his long-standing title and entered an order of ejectment of Dadd from the disputed property.
- Ann Dadd, as appellant, appealed the final judgment of the circuit court to the Third District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1974 version of section 95.16 of the Florida Statutes, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, allow for the establishment of adverse possession under color of title for a disputed strip of land that is contiguous to the described property and protected by a substantial enclosure, even if the written instrument of title does not specifically describe the disputed strip, and can such vested title withstand subsequent statutory amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepherd, J.
Yes, the 1974 version of section 95.16 of the Florida Statutes, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, allows for the establishment of adverse possession under color of title for a disputed strip of land that is contiguous to the described property and protected by a substantial enclosure, even if the written instrument of title does not specifically describe the disputed strip, and such vested title withstands subsequent statutory amendments. The court explained that despite a plain reading of the 1974 consolidated statute, the Florida Supreme Court in Seddon v. Harpster (1981) explicitly construed it to mean that a claimant did not need paper title correctly describing the disputed property if it was contiguous to the described land and "protected by a substantial enclosure." Unrebutted testimony demonstrated that the fence enclosed the disputed strip since 1976, during Richard Wood's ownership. By 1983, Wood had met all the requirements of the 1974 statute, thus vesting lawful title in him by adverse possession. This title then passed to Ann Dadd when she became his lawful successor by warranty deed in 1989. The 1987 amendment to section 95.16, which subsequently required a written instrument to describe the disputed property for color of title, does not retroactively divest vested rights, consistent with the principle established in Weingrad v. Miles. Once title vests by adverse possession, it becomes legal title against the world and is transferable to successors.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of Florida's adverse possession laws, particularly regarding the interpretation of older statutes and the impact of subsequent legislative amendments on vested property rights. It reinforces the principle that once adverse possession requirements are fully met, and title legally vests in a claimant, such rights are generally protected from retroactive divestment by later statutory changes. This ruling provides crucial guidance for property disputes involving long-standing physical boundaries that may not align with current legal descriptions, emphasizing the importance of historical interpretations of statutes and the concept of vested rights in property law.
