Florida Statute 66.041 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 66
EJECTMENT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 66.041

66.041 Betterment, petition.—If a judgment of eviction is rendered against defendant, within 60 days thereafter, or if he or she has appealed, within 20 days after filing the mandate affirming the judgment, defendant may file in the court in which the judgment was rendered a petition setting forth that:

(1) Defendant had been in possession and that he or she or those under whom defendant validly derived had permanently improved the value of the property in controversy before commencement of the action in which judgment was rendered;

(2) Defendant or those under whom defendant validly derives held the property at the time of such improvement under an apparently good legal or equitable title derived from the English, Spanish, or United States Governments or this state; or under a legal or equitable title plain and connected on the records of a public office or public offices; or under purchase at a regular sale made by an executor, administrator, guardian or other person by order of court; and

(3) When defendant made the improvements or purchased the property improved, he or she believed the title which he or she held or purchased to the land thus improved to be a good and valid title. The petition shall demand that the value of the improvements be assessed and compensation awarded to defendant therefor.

History.—RS 1516; GS 1971; RGS 3239; CGL 5047; s. 2, ch. 29737, 1955; s. 21, ch. 67-254; s. 349, ch. 95-147.

Note.—Former s. 70.06.

F.S. 66.041 on Google Scholar

F.S. 66.041 on Casetext

Amendments to 66.041

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 66.041

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 66.041.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 66.041

Total Results: 16

Centennial Homeowners Ass'n v. Dolomite Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-07-25

Citation: 96 So. 3d 954, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11970, 2012 WL 3023095

Snippet: Centennial’s betterment action, filed pursuant to section 66.041, et seq., Florida Statutes (2009), and from a final

Centennial Homeowners Assn. v. Dolomite Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-10-13

Citation: 47 So. 3d 863, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 15565, 2010 WL 3985299

Snippet: action in the trial court, pursuant to section 66.041, et seq., Florida Statutes (2009). Centennial then

Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2004-11-18

Citation: 896 So. 2d 665, 29 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 679, 2004 Fla. LEXIS 2099, 2004 WL 2609255

Snippet: that verdict, the trial court entered a $1,893,066.41 amended final judgment in favor of Berges.2 Infinity

Infinity Ins. Co. v. Berges

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-08-01

Citation: 806 So. 2d 504, 2001 WL 898533

Snippet: that verdict, the trial court entered a $1,893,066.41 amended final judgment in favor of Berges on November

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1994-08-23

Snippet: and 55-189 (1955). 3 See, Ops. Att'y Gen. Fla. 66-41 (1966) and 91-3 (1991), respectively. 4 See, McBride

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1991-01-08

Snippet: 3 See, e.g., AGO's 90-35 and 55-189. 4 See, AGO 66-41. 5 McBride v. State, 22 So. 711, 713 (Fla. 1897)

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1990-07-27

Snippet: (4 D.C.A. Fla., 1967). 10 Id. at 609. Cf., AGO 66-41 stating that where the payment of an entrance fee

Seddon v. Harpster

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1983-09-22

Citation: 438 So. 2d 165

Snippet: court's mandate was rendered on May 13, 1982. Section 66.041, Fla. Stat. (1981), provides in part: If a judgment

Shared Services, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND REH. SERVICES

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1983-01-07

Citation: 426 So. 2d 56, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 18412

Snippet: and 401.25(2), Florida Statutes, and in Rule 10D-66.41(d), Fla. Admin. Code. In summary, Shared Services

Volusia Fern Co. v. Cox

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1980-12-17

Citation: 393 So. 2d 1126, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17880

Snippet: VERNON W., Associate Judge, concur. . Section 66.041, Florida Statutes (1977), provides: If a judgment

Brown v. Johns

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1975-05-15

Citation: 312 So. 2d 526

Snippet: Hale, 1940, 145 Fla. 389, 199 So. 361. [5] F.S. 66.041-66.101. [6] See McCreary v. Lake Boulevard Sponge

Faircloth v. Central Florida Fair, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1967-09-28

Citation: 202 So. 2d 608, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4310

Snippet: Defendant himself recognizes this in Op.Atty.Gen. 066-41 in which he finds golf tournaments and bowling

Laughter v. Laughter

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1966-07-12

Citation: 188 So. 2d 832, 1966 Fla. App. LEXIS 5125

Snippet: PER CURIAM. The appellant, husband, filed a complaint for divorce and the appellee, wife, counterclaimed for alimony and child support unconnected with divorce pursuant to § 65.09, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The final decree denied the husband’s prayer for divorce and granted the wife relief pursuant to the statute. On this appeal the husband urges error upon the failure of the Court to grant him a decree of divorce and urges that the amount allowed as child support is excessive. The chancellor denied plaintiff’s

Ace Cab Co. v. Garcia

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1962-04-17

Citation: 140 So. 2d 338, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3195

Snippet: 1954, 268 S.W.2d 947; Hiekerson v. Burner, 186 Va. 66, 41 S.E.2d 451; 4 Wigmore § 1166 (3rd ed. 1940); 66

City of St. Petersburg v. Earle

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1959-01-30

Citation: 109 So. 2d 388

Snippet: limited by various other statutes (see F.S. §§ 66.02, 66.41, F.S.A.), and by common-law rules. One example is

Paxson v. Collins

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1958-02-13

Citation: 100 So. 2d 672

Snippet: Section 11, Florida Constitution, F.S.A.; Section 66.41 Florida Statutes 1955, F.S.A. The cases of the Supreme