Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 71 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
Statute is currently reporting as:
F.S. 71 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 71

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 71
REESTABLISHMENT OF DOCUMENTS
View Entire Chapter
CHAPTER 71
CHAPTER 71
REESTABLISHMENT OF DOCUMENTS
71.011 Reestablishment of papers, records, and files.
71.021 Reestablishment of record of marks and brands.
71.031 Reestablishment of proceedings in pending actions.
71.041 Reestablishment of land titles destroyed by fire.
71.011 Reestablishment of papers, records, and files.—All papers, written or printed, of any kind whatsoever, and the records and files of any official, court or public office, may be reestablished in the manner hereinafter provided.
(1) WHO MAY REESTABLISH.—Any person interested in the paper, file or record to be reestablished may reestablish it.
(2) VENUE.—If reestablishment is sought of a record or file, venue is in the county where the record or file existed before its loss or destruction. If it is a private paper, venue is in the county where any person affected thereby lives or if such persons are nonresidents of the state, then in any county in which the person seeking the reestablishment desires.
(3) REMEDY CONCURRENT.—Nothing herein shall prevent the reestablishment of lost papers, records and files at common law or in equity in the usual manner.
(4) EFFECT.—
(a) Any paper, record or file reestablished has the effect of the original. A private paper has such effect immediately on recording the judgment reestablishing it, but a reestablished record does not have that effect until recorded and a reestablished paper or file of any official, court or public officer does not have that effect until a certified copy is filed with the official or in the court or public office where the original belonged. A certified copy of any reestablished paper, the original of which is required or authorized by law to be recorded, may be recorded.
(b) When any deed forming a link in a chain of title to land in this state has been placed on the proper record without having been acknowledged or proven for record and has thereafter been lost or destroyed, certified copies of the record of the deed as so recorded may be received as evidence to reestablish the deed if the deed has been so recorded for 20 years.
(5) COMPLAINT.—A person desiring to establish any paper, record or file, except when otherwise provided, shall file a complaint in chancery setting forth that the paper, record or file has been lost or destroyed and is not in the custody or control of the petitioner, the time and manner of loss or destruction, that a copy attached is a substantial copy of that lost or destroyed, that the persons named in the complaint are the only persons known to plaintiff who are interested for or against such reestablishment.
History.—s. 5, Nov. 21, 1829; s. 12, ch. 1369, 1862; s. 2, ch. 3019, 1877; RS 1523-1527, 1533; s. 1, ch. 5162, 1903; GS 1978-1982, 1997; RGS 3246-3250, 3265; CGL 5054-5058, 5073; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945; s. 24, ch. 67-254.
Note.—Former ss. 71.01-71.06.
71.021 Reestablishment of record of marks and brands.—The person desiring the reestablishment of the record of any marks or brands shall file a verified complaint in chancery describing the particular mark or brand sought to be reestablished, stating the place where it was recorded, the time of record as near as is known, that the record has been lost or destroyed, and demand reestablishment of the record of the mark or brand. On filing the complaint, the court shall order reestablishment of the mark or brand.
History.—s. 2, ch. 1369, 1862; RS 1528; GS 1983; RGS 3251; CGL 5059; s. 24, ch. 67-254.
Note.—Former s. 71.09.
71.031 Reestablishment of proceedings in pending actions.—Lost or destroyed proceedings and any paper or file affecting them in any actions pending and undetermined in any court may be reestablished by the person desiring reestablishment by filing a copy of the proceedings, paper or file in chancery and giving 10 days’ written notice to all parties to the action of the application for reestablishment of the proceedings, paper or file. On the hearing the judge shall ascertain the facts and determine the application.
History.—s. 6, ch. 1735, 1870; RS 1532; GS 1996; RGS 3264; CGL 5072; s. 24, ch. 67-254.
Note.—Former s. 71.13.
71.041 Reestablishment of land titles destroyed by fire.—
(1) JURISDICTION.—When the records in any county or any material part thereof have been destroyed by fire so that a connected chain of title cannot be deduced therefrom, the chancery court in the county has jurisdiction to inquire into the condition of any title to or interest in any land in the county and to determine and establish the title against all persons known or unknown.
(2) PLAINTIFF.—Any person claiming a freehold estate in any land in the county who, or whose grantors, were in the actual possession of the land at the time of destruction of the records and who is in possession thereof at the time of filing the complaint may file a complaint to establish and confirm his or her title to an estate in such land. Tenants in common or persons owning as aforesaid an undivided interest in the lands may join in the action.
(3) COMPLAINT.—The complaint shall state the description of the lands, the character and extent of the estate claimed by the plaintiff, from whom and when and by what mode the plaintiff derived the title, the names of all persons owning or claiming any estate or possessory interest in the lands or any part thereof, all persons who are in possession of the lands or any part thereof, all persons to whom any of the lands have been conveyed, and the date or dates that the conveyances were recorded since the time of the destruction of the records and before the filing of the complaint and if no such persons are known to plaintiff, he or she shall so state.
(4) DETERMINATION OF TITLES, ETC.—The court may determine in whom the title to any land described in the complaint is vested, whether plaintiff or any other party, but the judgment shall not affect any lien to which the land is subject, but shall leave all liens to be ascertained or established or enforced as is provided by law.
History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, 7, ch. 4952, 1901; GS 1987-1989, 1994; RGS 3255-3257, 3262; CGL 5063-5065, 5070; s. 24, ch. 67-254; s. 357, ch. 95-147.
Note.—Former ss. 71.14, 71.15, 71.17, 71.21.

F.S. 71 on Google Scholar

F.S. 71 on Casetext

Amendments to 71


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 71
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 71.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 71

Total Results: 20

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. True Builders A/A/O David Joiner and Melaney Joiner

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-13

Snippet: e.g., Criterion Ins. v. Gutierrez, 319 So. 2d 70, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) (awarding section 627.428(1)

Malik Sands v. Sherea Green, Etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-12

Snippet: vehicular homicide, in violation of section 782.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2023), one count of driving

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: supplied)); Bennett v. St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., Inc., 71 So. 3d 828, 844 (Fla. 2011) (holding that whether

Morrow v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: with intent to promote child pornography. See § 827.071(4), Fla. Stat. This charge was punishable by up to

Debose v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: 800.04; s. 810.145(8)(b); s. 825.1025; s. 827.071; s. 847.0135, excluding s. 847.0135(6); s. 847

Shands Jacksonville Medical Center, Inc., and University of Florida Board of Trustees

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-11

Snippet: supplied)); Bennett v. St. Vincent’s Med. Ctr., Inc., 71 So. 3d 828, 844 (Fla. 2011) (holding that whether

Zachary Nathaniel Music v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-12-04

Snippet: 8 at 970–71. While the State claimed these other robberies were

Larry Darnell Springer, Sr., Individually, and as Trustee of The, Larry Darnell Springer, Sr. Trust v. Charlotte Miller Merricks

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-27

Snippet: permits juries to make factual determinations. § 86.071, Fla. Stat. (2022). However, “[t]he court has power

Joseph Grimes v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-20

Snippet: & Loan Ass’n v. Fishbein, 619 So. 2d 267, 270-71 (Fla. 1993) (holding bank was entitled to equitable

Daphne Campbell v. Florida Commission on Ethics

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-20

Snippet: Robinson v. Comm’n on Ethics, 242 So. 3d 467, 470–71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (first citing § 120.68(7)(b)

National Loan Acquisitions Company v. Tabernacle Christian Center Ministries, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-13

Snippet: 8 So. 3d 61, 71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quoting Bennett v. Berges, 50

Petro Welt Trading ges.M.B.h v. Edward Brinkmann

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-11-08

Snippet: Brinkmann and other associates intentionally wiped 71,000 files and 37 email accounts from servers. Though

Roosevelt Smith v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-30

Snippet: under rule 3.800(a). Ramirez v. State, 374 So. 3d 71, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A motion to correct illegal

Thomas-McDonald Law Firm, P.A. v. Jorge E. Silva, Etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-16

Snippet: DCA 2014); Stockinger v. Zeilberger, 152 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“The establishment of irreparable

Will Utile v. the State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-16

Snippet: resulting sentence.” Ramirez v. State, 374 So. 3d 71, 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Although the instant challenge

Adolfo Pazmino Lopez v. Mel-Mont Medical, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-16

Snippet: permitted under the “criminal” usury statue, § 687.071, Florida Statutes, with the “civil” usury statute

Progressive Specialty Insurance Company v. Florida Hospital Ocala, Inc. D/B/A Adventhealth Ocala A/A/O Sandra Thomas

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-14

Snippet: and Florida Hospital billed Progressive $8,870.71 for her treatment. Progressive paid Florida Hospital

Bergeron Environmental and Recycling, LLC v. LGL Recycling, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-09

Snippet: v. Life of the S. Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 1166, 1170– 71 (11th Cir. 2011).

Kim Braddock v. City of Port Orange Pension Fund

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-02

Snippet: enforcement officer to facilitate the scheme.” Id. at 670–71. As such, the record failed “to provide a link between

Paul T. McCaw v. State of Florida

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-10-02

Snippet: 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Krause v. State, 98 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Further, “[w]hether a jury