Frazier v. Goszczynski
2014 WL 5039679, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 15815, 161 So.3d 542 (2014)
Rule of Law:
For a claim of adverse possession under color of title to succeed, the purported instrument of conveyance must be accepted by the grantee in good faith and with the honest belief that it legitimately vests title in the claimant, precluding the use of a self-created 'wild deed' by one with no prior interest to manufacture a claim.
Facts:
- Richard Goszczynski owned real property in Hernando County, having become the sole owner after his joint tenant, Eugene Zielinski, passed away.
- Goszczynski became delinquent in paying the ad valorem taxes on the property.
- Luke Frazier and Connie Frazier, who had never owned any interest in Goszczynski's property, prepared a quitclaim deed purporting to convey the property from Luke Frazier, as grantor, to himself and his mother, Connie Frazier, as grantees, stating 'love and affection' as consideration.
- The Fraziers recorded this quitclaim deed in the public records, which Luke Frazier later admitted in pleadings was a 'wild deed' executed specifically to set up a claim of adverse possession under color of title.
- After recording the deed, the Fraziers took possession of Goszczynski's property, paid the delinquent taxes, and rented the property to others, retaining the rental payments for themselves.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Goszczynski filed a lawsuit in trial court to quiet title to his property.
- Luke Frazier and Connie Frazier filed a counterclaim for quiet title, asserting they had adversely possessed the property for over seven years under color of title, pursuant to Florida Statute § 95.16.
- Goszczynski filed a motion for summary judgment with the trial court.
- The trial court granted Goszczynski's motion for summary judgment and entered a final judgment quieting title in Goszczynski.
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 a quitclaim deed, created by a party who has no title to the property, conveying the property from himself to himself and another, and admittedly manufactured solely for the purpose of establishing a claim of adverse possession under color of title, constitute valid 'color of title' under Florida Statute § 95.16?
Opinions:
Majority - Sawaya, J.
No, a quitclaim deed created by a party with no title and manufactured solely to establish an adverse possession claim under color of title does not constitute valid 'color of title' because it lacks the necessary element of good faith. The court held that 'color of title' requires the deed of conveyance to be accepted by the grantee in good faith and with the honest belief that it constitutes a legitimate conveyance of title. Citing precedents such as McLemore v. McLemore, Steputat & Co., Inc. v. Bidwell, and Bonifay v. Garner, the court emphasized that adverse possession under color of title cannot be established if the instrument is accepted with knowledge that it is invalid or that the grantor had no title to convey. The court found the Fraziers' assertion of good faith incredible, given their admission that they never owned an interest in the property, they manufactured the deed themselves, and its express purpose was to conjure an adverse possession claim against Goszczynski. The court stated that the law of adverse possession was devised to address situations where individuals took possession under a flawed but mistakenly believed valid conveyance, not to legitimize the actions of 'fortune hunters and mischievous interlopers' who fabricate deeds for financial gain. To countenance such conduct would undermine the very purpose of the law.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'good faith' requirement for adverse possession under color of title in Florida, firmly rejecting attempts to create color of title through self-serving, fraudulent deeds. By emphasizing that the purpose of this legal doctrine is to protect those who genuinely, albeit mistakenly, believe they have valid title, the court reinforces the protection of true property owners against deliberate schemes to acquire land. This ruling serves as a strong deterrent against the fabrication of 'wild deeds' and helps prevent the manipulation of adverse possession laws for illegitimate personal gain, thereby strengthening the stability of property titles.
