CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...While both parties introduced evidence as to possession, this evidence was insufficient to establish a title by adverse possession in either the appellant or appellee. The cause was referred to a Special Master and appellant having given the notice required by F.S. § 92.08, F.S.A., offered in evidence a certified copy of a deed from Henry L....
...410, as in that case the tax deed sought to be stricken was by statute made prima facie evidence; whereas the deed in the present case is not, as we have seen, prima facie evidence of title or of the regularity of proceedings." In 1925, Chapter 10111, now F.S. § 92.08 F.S.A., was enacted which reads as follows: " Deeds and powers of attorney of record for 20 years or more as evidence....
...e is to perfect a title of record for twenty years which might for various reasons, otherwise be defective, * * *" (Emphasis supplied.) The deed from the State of Florida to W.B. Owen, dated June 21, 1895, should have been received in evidence (F.S. § 92.08, F.S.A.) and recognition given to the applicable provisions of F.S....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1960 Fla. App. LEXIS 2335
...There then ensued a long discussion between counsel for both sides and the trial court concerning the admissibility of the mentioned certified copies. During this discussion the trial court referred to our decision in Foremost Properties, Inc. v. Gladman, Fla.App.1958,
100 So.2d 669 as holding that Section
92.08, Florida Statutes 1959, F.S.A., must be complied with to take advantage of Section 95.23, Florida Statutes 1959, F.S.A. The trial court then held that unless there was some evidence that Section
92.08 had been complied with, the court would have to sustain the objections to the introduction of the certified copies of the power of attorney and the deed to Danford....
...ying the land in question. The trial court, however, held because of its understanding of our Foremost Properties decision that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefit of this statute because of their failure to comply with the provisions of Section 92.08, Florida Statutes 1.959, F.S.A., which reads: “Deed and powers of attorney of record for 20 years or more as evidence....
...custody or control of the party offering the copy.” The question is now squarely up to us to declare whether in Foremost Properties, Inc. v. Gladman, Fla.App.1958,
100 So.2d 669, 670 , we held, expressly or impliedly, that a party must comply with Section
92.08, in order to secure the benefits of Section 95.23....
...In that case we considered an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to quiet title. Its title was based upon a chain of title deraigned from a tax deed issued by the State of Florida to W. B. Owen in 1895. As we said in our opinion, the appellant, “having given the notice required by F.S. § 92.08” offered in evidence at a hearing before the special master a certified copy of that tax deed, to which the appellee objected on the ground that proof of the proceedings surrounding the issuance of the deed had not been received in evidence....
...3. We pointed out that it was admitted that proof of the proceedings surrounding the issuance of the deed was impossible because of the loss or destruction of records. Finally, we held that the tax deed “should have been received in evidence (F.S. § 92.08, F.S.A.) and recognition given to the applicable provisions of F.S....
...§ 95.23, F.S.A.” We then reversed the final decree and remanded the cause for further proceedings. The language quoted from our opinion in the Foremost Properties case, to *331 gether with the remainder of the opinion, was not intended by us as an indication that we were holding that in every case compliance with Section 92.08 was a prerequisite to invoking Section 95.23....
...ge we happened to employ in the opinion in expressing our views on the law and facts involved in that case. To make sure that there will be no possible further misunderstanding in the bench or bar as to our position on this question: Compliance with Section 92.08, (giving the ten days’ notice, etc.) is not necessarily a prerequisite to invoking the benefits of Section 95.23. A careful reading of Section 92.08 reveals clearly that the legislature enacting it intended to confine its provisions to cases in which a deed of conveyance or power of attorney, recorded more than twenty years before the institution of the suit is offered in evidence f...
