adverse claim in Florida

2025Specifically, Old Republic asserts that the gravamen of the overall allegations against Insureds conclusively established that Langley’s “adverse claim” against Insureds was “suffered” or “created” by Insureds.4 We disagree because a careful reading of the Monroe County lawsuit’s allegations directs a finding that the exclusion did not apply. 4 In First American Title Insurance Company v. Kessler, 452 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), this Court adopted the following definitions for “created” or “suffered” as they are used in a sufficiently similar exclusion from coverage in a title insurance poli

2025Specifically, Old Republic asserts that the gravamen of the overall allegations against Insureds conclusively established that Langley’s “adverse claim” against Insureds was “suffered” or “created” by Insureds.4 We disagree because a careful reading of the Monroe County lawsuit’s allegations directs a finding that the exclusion did not apply. 4 In First American Title Insurance Company v. Kessler, 452 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), this Court adopted the following definitions for “created” or “suffered” as they are used in a sufficiently similar exclusion from coverage in a title insurance poli

1969In Reed v. Fain, Fla. 1961, 145 So.2d 858 , the Florida Supreme Court on rehearing held that § 95.23, F.S.A., could not be applied to validate a deed executed in violation of the homestead provisions of Article X of the Florida Constitution of 1885.

1964This statement of the proposition recognizes that technically in the absence of a statutory provision, equity is not bound absolutely to apply a statute of limitations but in following the law, absent the presence of intervening equities to the contrary, a court of equity will base its application of the doctrine of laches on the provisions of the appropriate statute of limitations. * * *" More recently, in Reed v. Fain, Fla. 1962, 145 So.2d 858, 867-868 , in the opinion on rehearing authored by Justice Hobson, the Supreme Court said: "The statute under consideration, if applicable in any equi

2007The Jaramillo court determined that in a joint custody situation, a parent wishing to relocate should not be burdened by an adverse presumption. 823 P.2d at 305 .

2006Unlike an adverse presumption instruction, where the court must find the spoliator was duty-bound to preserve the evidence, "an adverse inference may arise in any situation where potentially self-damaging evidence is in the possession of a party and that party either loses or destroys the evidence." Martino, 835 So.2d at 1257 .

1984See Arizona Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Smith, 21 Ariz. App. 371 , 519 P.2d 860 (1974); Feldman v. Urban Commercial, Inc., 87 N.J.

1980As the Florida Supreme Court held in Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575 , 184 So. 140 (1938), a lien will not be imposed in favor of one who makes improvements when that person has notice of the existence of an adverse claim which subsequently proves to be superior.

1980As the Florida Supreme Court held in Johns v. Gillian, 134 Fla. 575 , 184 So. 140 (1938), a lien will not be imposed in favor of one who makes improvements when that person has notice of the existence of an adverse claim which subsequently proves to be superior.

1977See also Grapes v. Mitchell, 159 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1963); and Peacock v. Firman, 177 So.2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).

1969These sections were codified as subsections (1) and (2) of Section 95.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. and read as follows: "(1) After the lapse of twenty years from the record of any deed or the probate of any will purporting to convey lands no person shall assert any claim to said lands as against the claimants under such deed or will, or their successors in title. "(2) After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." In W

1969These sections were codified as subsections (1) and (2) of Section 95.23, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. and read as follows: "(1) After the lapse of twenty years from the record of any deed or the probate of any will purporting to convey lands no person shall assert any claim to said lands as against the claimants under such deed or will, or their successors in title. "(2) After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." In W

1964"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." In Andrews v. Andrews, 155 Fla. 654 , 21 So.2d 205, 207 , the Supreme Court of Florida held that a resale by the state to one co-parcener, of property which had been forfeited to the state under the Murphy Act, amounted only to a redemption of the property from delinquent taxes for the benefit of both former owners.

1964"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." In Andrews v. Andrews, 155 Fla. 654 , 21 So.2d 205, 207 , the Supreme Court of Florida held that a resale by the state to one co-parcener, of property which had been forfeited to the state under the Murphy Act, amounted only to a redemption of the property from delinquent taxes for the benefit of both former owners.

1960Since we have decided that the appellants here were entitled to the benefits of Section 95.23, when they offered in evidence the certified copies of the power of attorney and the deed to Danford, both of which instruments had been on record for far more than the required twenty years, they were entitled to the benefits embodied in and endowed by the following provisions of that statute: that “ * * * no person shall assert any claim to said lands as against the claimant under such deed * * *, or their successors in title”; that such a deed “shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the

1957This court said in Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Roper, 1914, 68 Fla. 299 , 67 So. 115, 116 , that “Possession, in order to be constructive notice of a claim of title to the land occupied, must be open, visible, and exclusive; and such occupancy may be shown by any use of the land that indicates an intention to appropriate it for the benefit of the possessor.

1957This court said in Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Roper, 1914, 68 Fla. 299 , 67 So. 115, 116 , that “Possession, in order to be constructive notice of a claim of title to the land occupied, must be open, visible, and exclusive; and such occupancy may be shown by any use of the land that indicates an intention to appropriate it for the benefit of the possessor.

1954"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." Ordinarily a recording statute has no affect as to transactions between the parties involved, Stewart v. Mathews, 19 Fla. 752 , and the mere failure to record a deed does not effect the title of the grantee except as to creditors and subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration without notice, Black v. Skinner Mfg.

1954Co., 53 Fla. 1090 , 43 So. 919 .

1953"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." *159 Appellants rely on Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63 , 174 So. 404 , and Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152 , 126 So. 135 , as establishing the applicability of Section 95.23, F.S.A. to situations such as the one here presented.

1953"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." *159 Appellants rely on Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63 , 174 So. 404 , and Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152 , 126 So. 135 , as establishing the applicability of Section 95.23, F.S.A. to situations such as the one here presented.

1953"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." *159 Appellants rely on Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63 , 174 So. 404 , and Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152 , 126 So. 135 , as establishing the applicability of Section 95.23, F.S.A. to situations such as the one here presented.

1953"After the lapse of twenty years all such deeds or wills shall be deemed valid and effectual for conveying the lands therein described, as against all persons who have not asserted by competent record title an adverse claim." *159 Appellants rely on Barnott v. Proctor, 128 Fla. 63 , 174 So. 404 , and Montgomery v. Carlton, 99 Fla. 152 , 126 So. 135 , as establishing the applicability of Section 95.23, F.S.A. to situations such as the one here presented.

1953Shults v. Shults, 159 Ill. 654 , 43 N.E. 800 ; Annotation 78 A.L.R. 58 .

1953Shults v. Shults, 159 Ill. 654 , 43 N.E. 800 ; Annotation 78 A.L.R. 58 .

1940In that opinion and judgment we held “The record discloses no actionable negligence on the part of the defendant * * In Webb Furniture Co., Inc., v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292 , 141 Sou. 115 , we held: “The sound rule seems to be that when error occurs in the trial of a common-law action by reason of which the judgment is reversed, on remand of the cause the parties are restored to the position they found themselves at the time the error was committed and the cause must be tried again but, if reversible error is committed after the trial, the adverse rule follows.

1940In that opinion and judgment we held “The record discloses no actionable negligence on the part of the defendant * * In Webb Furniture Co., Inc., v. Everett, 105 Fla. 292 , 141 Sou. 115 , we held: “The sound rule seems to be that when error occurs in the trial of a common-law action by reason of which the judgment is reversed, on remand of the cause the parties are restored to the position they found themselves at the time the error was committed and the cause must be tried again but, if reversible error is committed after the trial, the adverse rule follows.

1938Note in Ann Cas. 1916B, 59; Lee v. Bowman, et al., 55 Mo. 400 .

1932At the time this suit was commenced on December 29, 1925, Chapter 10223, Acts of 1925, had just gone into effect, Section I of which authorizes the bringing of suits in equity to quiet title by any person claiming title to real estate, against any person who has or appears to have or claims an adverse interest legal or equitable therein, for the purpose of determining such interest or claim and quieting or removing clouds from the title to such real estate; also provides that the fact that the title has not been litigated at law or that the adverse claim against which the bill is brought is vo