Florida Statute 71 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Chapter 71
REESTABLISHMENT OF DOCUMENTS

View Entire Chapter

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

Paul T. McCaw v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-10-02T00:00:00-07:00

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

Kim Braddock v. City of Port Orange Pension Fund

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-10-02T00:00:00-07:00

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

Alexander Garcia v. Yellow Cab Company

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-09-18T00:00:00-07:00

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

Scott McDermott v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-09-13T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: read- back. See Mendez v. State, 252 So. 3d 368, 370–71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding trial court did not err

Taylor v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-09-11T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See McCray v. State, 71 So. 3d 848, 865–66 (Fla. 2011) (holding that a hearing

Christopher T. Knott v. Tracey L. Knott

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-09-06T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: most recent statement in evidence—was only $77,633.71, and there was no finding that misconduct had occasioned

Lucas A. Sanchez-Del Valle v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-09-04T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: innocence.”) (emphasis added); T.J. v. State, 215 So. 3d 71, 73 n.6 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (observing: “People accused

Universal Handicraft, Inc., and Shay Segev v. Tziyona Cohen

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-09-04T00:00:00-07:00

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

KYLE KENNETH KLICK v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-30T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: 4 2016) (quoting Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (internal quotations

Harvill v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-21T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: specific conduct charged or proved at trial. Id. at 68, 71. If the offenses are separate, we must next look …. See Maisonet- Maldonado, 308 So. 3d at 71 (explaining that when two offenses

Harvill v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-21T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: specific conduct charged or proved at trial. Id. at 68, 71. If the offenses are separate, we must next look …. See Maisonet- Maldonado, 308 So. 3d at 71 (explaining that when two offenses

Harvill v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-21T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: specific conduct charged or proved at trial. Id. at 68, 71. If the offenses are separate, we must next look …. See Maisonet- Maldonado, 308 So. 3d at 71 (explaining that when two offenses

Harvill v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-21T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: specific conduct charged or proved at trial. Id. at 68, 71. If the offenses are separate, we must next look …. See Maisonet- Maldonado, 308 So. 3d at 71 (explaining that when two offenses

Hillsborough County, Florida v. The School Board of Hillsborough County

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-19T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: November 5, 2024, general election ballot. See § 1011.71(9), Fla. Stat. (2023). The resolution and the text…valorem tax millage as authorized under s. 1011.71(9). Such election may be held at any time, except…from district sources."). Section 1011.71(9) provides that "a school district may levy…authority to levy additional millage under section 1011.71(9) by resolution adopted at a regular meeting. §

Michael L. Waite v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-16T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: reviewed de novo. Galston v. State, 943 So. 2d 968, 970–71 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing State v. Massey, 873

Amigos Traffic School, Inc. v. Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-14T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: 3D23-2170 Lower Tribunal Nos. HSMV Case No. MS-23-071, DOAH Case No. 23-

Joel T. Cooper v. State of Florida

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-08-07T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: proof of the amount of damage. See Marrero v. State, 71 So. 3d 881, 885–89 (Fla. 2011); Perez v. State, 162

Peter R. Ehrlich, Jr. v. Timothy M. Hogle

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-07-31T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: prosecution. Chemrock Corp. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 71 So. 3d 786, 792 (Fla. 2011). The application of this…As the Florida Supreme Court observed in Chemrock, 71 So. 3d at 791, “any filing of record during the

Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Corporation v. Irma Qureshi and George Guerrero

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-07-24T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: law is in accord. See Ward v. Branch, 429 So. 2d 71, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (“It is a well-established

City of Miramar v. Donald Spadaro and Anthony Caravella

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2024-07-17T00:00:00-07:00

Snippet: judgment against the two officers because section 111.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), prohibits a municipality…judgment against the two officers because section 111.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), prohibits a municipality…officers. On the contrary, the city showed section 111.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), clearly prohibited…judgment against the two officers. Section 111.071(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), pertinently provides…have caused the harm intentionally. § 111.071(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014) (emphases added). Here