Meyer v. Law
287 So. 2d 37 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's valid title to their own property does not provide "color of title" for an adjacent parcel of land that they mistakenly enclose. To acquire title to contiguous land not described in one's deed through adverse possession, the claimant must satisfy the statutory requirements for adverse possession without color of title, which includes the payment of taxes on the disputed property.
Facts:
- John E. Meyer and L. Leona Meyer (Meyers) owned a parcel of land adjacent to property owned by Neil F. Law, Jr., and Lucille W. Law (Laws).
- Both the Meyers and the Laws held recorded deeds that accurately reflected the true boundary line between their properties.
- Relying on an incorrect survey, the Laws built a fence that enclosed a portion of the Meyers' land.
- The Laws maintained this fence and occupied the enclosed portion of the Meyers' land for 25 years under the mistaken belief that it was part of their own property.
- Throughout this period, both parties paid property taxes only on the land described in their respective deeds.
- The Laws never returned the enclosed portion of the Meyers' land for taxes nor did they pay any taxes on it.
Procedural Posture:
- The Meyers (petitioners) initiated a legal action against the Laws (respondents) regarding the property boundary.
- The Circuit Court (trial court) found that the Laws had acquired valid title to the disputed land by adverse possession under color of title.
- The Meyers, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Laws.
- The Meyers, as petitioners, sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Florida, which was granted.
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 landowner's recorded deed to their property constitute "color of title" for a contiguous portion of a neighbor's property that the landowner mistakenly encloses with a fence for the statutory period, thereby perfecting a claim of adverse possession without paying taxes on the encroached-upon land?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyd, J.
No. A landowner's valid deed for their own property does not create color of title over an adjacent parcel mistakenly enclosed. To acquire land by adverse possession, a claimant must strictly comply with one of Florida's two statutory methods. The first, without color of title, requires possession plus payment of taxes on the disputed land. The second, with color of title, requires possession under a written instrument that purports to convey the land in question. The Laws' deed only described their own property, not the disputed strip of the Meyers' land. The court interpreted Fla. Stat. § 95.17(2) to mean that when a deed describes a large tract but the claimant only possesses a portion, the claim is limited to the possessed portion; it does not extend color of title to land outside the instrument's description. Since the Laws had no instrument describing the Meyers' land and did not pay taxes on it, their claim fails.
Dissenting - Adkins, J.
Yes. A landowner's deed, combined with a good-faith enclosure of contiguous land, should be deemed to create color of title over the enclosed portion under the plain language of the statute. The majority opinion ignores the explicit text of Fla. Stat. § 95.17(2), which provides that 'All contiguous land protected by such substantial enclosure shall be deemed to be premises included within the written instrument.' This language was specifically added by the legislature to address good-faith boundary mistakes and extend the color of title doctrine to such situations, thereby eliminating the tax payment requirement. The majority is effectively repealing a statute by judicial decree and is punishing a landowner who, in good faith, relied on a survey and improved the land, while rewarding a neighbor who did not monitor their own property boundaries for years.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the doctrine of adverse possession under color of title in Florida, particularly in boundary dispute cases. It establishes that 'color of title' cannot be contagious; the written instrument must actually describe the land being claimed. By rejecting the argument that a deed to one parcel can provide color of title for an adjacent, mistakenly enclosed parcel, the court reinforces the security of recorded titles. This holding forces most claimants in boundary encroachment cases to proceed under the stricter requirements of adverse possession without color of title, which mandates the payment of taxes on the disputed strip of land. The ruling makes it more difficult for encroaching neighbors to acquire title, even after long periods of open possession, thereby strengthening the rights of the titleholder of record.
