65.061
Quieting title; additional remedy.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
65.061 Quieting title; additional remedy.—
(1) JURISDICTION.—Chancery courts have jurisdiction of actions by any person or corporation claiming legal or equitable title to any land, or part thereof, or when any two or more persons claim to own the same land, or any part thereof under a common title against all persons or corporations claiming title to or occupying the land adversely to plaintiff, whether defendants claim or hold under a common title or not, and shall determine the title of plaintiff and may enter judgment quieting the title and awarding possession to the party entitled thereto, but if any defendant is in actual possession of any part of the land, a trial by jury may be demanded by any party, whereupon the court shall order an issue in ejectment as to such lands to be made and tried by a jury. Provision for trial by jury does not affect the action on any lands that are not claimed to be in the actual possession of any defendant. The court may enter final judgment without awaiting the determination of the ejectment action.
(2) GROUNDS.—When a person or corporation not the rightful owner of land has any conveyance or other evidence of title thereto, or asserts any claim, or pretends to have any right or title thereto, which may cast a cloud on the title of the real owner, or when any person or corporation is the true and equitable owner of land the record title to which is not in the person or corporation because of the defective execution of any deed or mortgage because of the omission of a seal thereon, the lack of witnesses, or any defect or omission in the wording of the acknowledgment of a party or parties thereto, when the person or corporation claims title thereto by the defective instrument and the defective instrument was apparently made and delivered by the grantor to convey or mortgage the real estate and was recorded in the county where the land lies, or when possession of the land has been held by any person or corporation adverse to the record owner thereof or his or her heirs and assigns until such adverse possession has ripened into a good title under the statutes of this state, such person or corporation may file complaint in any county in which any part of the land is situated to have the conveyance or other evidence of claim or title canceled and the cloud removed from the title and to have his or her title quieted, whether such real owner is in possession or not or is threatened to be disturbed in his or her possession or not, and whether defendant is a resident of this state or not, and whether the title has been litigated at law or not, and whether the adverse claim or title or interest is void on its face or not, or if not void on its face that it may require extrinsic evidence to establish its validity. A guardian ad litem shall not be appointed unless it shall affirmatively appear that the interest of minors, persons of unsound mind, or convicts are involved.
(3) DERAIGNMENT OF TITLE.—The plaintiff shall deraign his or her title from the original source or for a period of at least 7 years before filing the complaint unless the court otherwise directs, setting forth the book and page of the records where any instrument affecting the title is recorded, if it is recorded, unless plaintiff claims from a common source with defendant.
(4) JUDGMENT.—If it appears that plaintiff has legal title to the land or is the equitable owner thereof based on one or more of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2), or if a default is entered against defendant (in which case no evidence need be taken), the court shall enter judgment removing the alleged cloud from the title to the land and forever quieting the title in plaintiff and those claiming under him or her since the commencement of the action and adjudging plaintiff to have a good fee simple title to said land or the interest thereby cleared of cloud.
(5) RECORDING FINAL JUDGMENTS.—All final judgments may be recorded in the county or counties in which the land is situated and operate to vest title in like manner as though a conveyance were executed by a special magistrate or commissioner.
(6) OPERATION.—This section is cumulative to other existing remedies.
History.—ss. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, ch. 11383, 1925; CGL 5010, 5011, 5014, 5015, 5017, 5018; s. 1, ch. 24293, 1947; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 20, ch. 67-254; s. 1, ch. 70-278; s. 346, ch. 95-147; s. 56, ch. 2004-11.
Note.—Former ss. 66.16, 66.17, 66.20, 66.21, 66.23, 66.24.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Price v. Tyler
Price v. Tyler (2004)
“See § 65.061, Fla. Stat. (2001). Pursuant to section 65.”
Hinton v. Gold (2002)
“§ 65.061(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). While the Hintons may have been subject to a default by failing to respond to the first petition to quiet title, there is no evidence in the record that a default was entered.”
Helman v. Udren Law Offices, P.C. (2014)
“• Fla. Stat. § 65.061 (2014); Woodruff, 118 So.”
Hollywood, Inc. v. City of Hollywood (1975)
“in actual possession' so as to give rise to a trial by jury," citing Fla. Stat. § 65.061 and Albury v. Drummond, 95 Fla.”
Crigger v. Florida Power Corp. (1983)
“[18] See § 65.061(3), Fla. Stat. (1981) (as to quiet title actions) and § 66.”
Ralph v. Department of Natural Resources (2014)
“); Fla. Stat. § 65.061 (quiet title complaint may be filed in any county in which any part of the land is situated); Mo.”
Millennium Diagnostic Imaging Center, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (2013)
“§ 65.061, Fla. Stat. (2013). Therefore, the circuit court acted within its equity jurisdiction in hearing and ruling on State Farm’s action for discovery under section 627.”
Hollywood, Inc. v. Zinkil (1981)
“The Supreme Court reasoned that the city was a "defendant in actual possession" as that term is used in Section 65.061, Florida Statutes (1973), and, therefore, the city was entitled to a jury trial "on the issues of dedication and actual possession of the property.”
Johnson v. Young (2007)
“Johnson then filed the present action in circuit court to quiet title under section 65.061, Florida Statutes (2006), and for eviction.”
TMRMC v. Petersen (2006)
“In quiet title actions, section 65.061(2), Florida Statutes (2004), prohibits the appointment of a guardian ad litem unless it appears that the interests of minors and specified others are involved.”
Amadou Wane v. The Loan Corporation (2014)
“” Fla. Stat. § 65.061 (2). If the plaintiff succeeds on the claim to quiet title, the court will enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and cancel any clouds to the title.”
Wilson v. Kelley (1969)
“Defendants moved to transfer the cause to the law side asking for a trial by jury pursuant to what is now Fla. Stat. § 65.061 (1967), F.S.A. The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, after which defendants filed a motion for judgment n.”
— 65.061(1) — 7 cases
Price v. Tyler (2004)
“See § 65.061, Fla. Stat. (2001). Pursuant to section 65.”
Landon v. Ralls (1995)
— 65.061(2) — 8 cases
TMRMC v. Petersen (2006)
“In quiet title actions, section 65.061(2), Florida Statutes (2004), prohibits the appointment of a guardian ad litem unless it appears that the interests of minors and specified others are involved.”
Pryor v. King (1986)
Martin County v. Johnson (1990)
— 65.061(3) — 2 cases
Crigger v. Florida Power Corp. (1983)
“[18] See § 65.061(3), Fla. Stat. (1981) (as to quiet title actions) and § 66.”
Helman v. Udren Law Offices, P.C. (2014)
“• Fla. Stat. § 65.061 (2014); Woodruff, 118 So.”
— 65.061(4) — 1 case
Hinton v. Gold (2002)
“§ 65.061(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). While the Hintons may have been subject to a default by failing to respond to the first petition to quiet title, there is no evidence in the record that a default was entered.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.