Florida Statute 177.101 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XII
MUNICIPALITIES

Chapter 177
LAND BOUNDARIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 177.101

177.101 Vacation and annulment of plats subdividing land.—

(1) Whenever it is discovered, after the plat has been recorded in the public records, that the developer has previously caused the lands embraced in the second plat to be differently subdivided under and by virtue of another plat of the same identical lands, and the first plat was also filed of public record at an earlier date, and no conveyances of lots by reference to the first plat so filed appears of record in such county, the governing body of the county is authorized and directed to and shall, by resolution, vacate and annul the first plat of such lands appearing of record upon the application of the developer of such lands under the first plat or upon application of the owners of all the lots shown and designated upon the second and subsequent plat of such lands, and the circuit court clerk of the county shall thereupon make proper notation of the annulment of such plat upon the face of such annulled plat.

(2) Whenever it is discovered that after the filing of a plat subdividing a parcel of land located in the county, the developer of the lands therein and thereby subdivided did cause such lands embraced in said plat, or a part thereof, to be again and subsequently differently subdivided under another plat of the same and identical lands or a part thereof, which said second plat was also filed at a later date; and it is further made to appear to the governing body of the county that the filing and recording of the second plat would not materially affect the right of convenient access to lots previously conveyed under the first plat, the governing body of the county is authorized by resolution to vacate and annul so much of the first plat of such lands appearing of record as are included in the second plat, upon application of the owners and developer of such lands under the first plat or their successors, grantees, or assignees, and the circuit court clerk of the county shall thereupon make proper notation of the action of the governing body upon the face of the first plat. The approval of a replat by the governing body of a local government, which encompasses lands embraced in all or part of a prior plat filed of public record shall, upon recordation of the replat, automatically and simultaneously vacate and annul all of the prior plat encompassed by the replat.

(3) The governing bodies of the counties of the state may adopt resolutions vacating plats in whole or in part of subdivisions in said counties, returning the property covered by such plats either in whole or in part into acreage. Before such resolution of vacating any plat either in whole or in part shall be entered by the governing body of a county, it must be shown that the persons making application for said vacation own the fee simple title to the whole or that part of the tract covered by the plat sought to be vacated, and it must be further shown that the vacation by the governing body of the county will not affect the ownership or right of convenient access of persons owning other parts of the subdivision.

(4) Persons making application for vacations of plats either in whole or in part shall give notice of their intention to apply to the governing body of the county to vacate said plat by publishing legal notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the tract or parcel of land is located, in not less than two weekly issues of said paper, and must attach to the petition for vacation the proof of such publication, together with certificates showing that all state and county taxes have been paid. For the purpose of the tax collector’s certification that state, county, and municipal taxes have been paid, the taxes shall be deemed to have been paid if, in addition to any partial payment under s. 194.171, the owner of the platted lands sought to be vacated shall post a cash bond, approved by the tax collector of the county where the land is located and by the Department of Revenue, conditioned to pay the full amount of any judgment entered pursuant to s. 194.192 adverse to the person making partial payment, including all costs, interest, and penalties. The circuit court shall fix the amount of said bond by order, after considering the reasonable timeframe for such litigation and all other relevant factors; and a certified copy of such approval, order, and cash bond shall be attached to the application. If such tract or parcel of land is within the corporate limits of any incorporated city or town, the governing body of the county shall be furnished with a certified copy of a resolution of the town council or city commission, as the case may be, showing that it has already by suitable resolution vacated such plat or subdivision or such part thereof sought to be vacated.

(5) Every such resolution by the governing body shall have the effect of vacating all streets and alleys which have not become highways necessary for use by the traveling public. Such vacation shall not become effective until a certified copy of such resolution has been filed in the offices of the circuit court clerk and duly recorded in the public records of said county.

(6) All resolutions vacating plats by the governing body of a county prior to September 1, 1971, are hereby validated, ratified, and confirmed. Such resolutions shall have the same effect as if the plat had been vacated after September 1, 1971.

History.—s. 1, ch. 71-339; s. 1, ch. 79-86; s. 32, ch. 87-224; s. 9, ch. 98-20.

F.S. 177.101 on Google Scholar

F.S. 177.101 on Casetext

Amendments to 177.101

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 177.101

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

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 177.101.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 177.101

Total Results: 18

Blair Nurseries, Inc. v. Baker County, Florida, A Political etc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-09-13

Citation: 199 So. 3d 534, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 13744

Snippet: right of convenient access” of such persons. § 177.101(3), Fla. *536Stat. (2014) (emphasis added). No

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 2005-02-09

Snippet: annulled.5 Pertinent to your inquiry, section 177.101(3), Florida Statutes, states: "The governing bodies

Orange West, Ltd. v. City of Winter Garden

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1988-07-07

Citation: 528 So. 2d 84, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1609, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2910, 1988 WL 68505

Snippet: 418 So.2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also § 177.101, Fla.Stat. (1985) (providing for the vacating of

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1987-03-11

Snippet: circumstances and upon certain conditions). Compare, s. 177.101, F.S. (vacation of plats on application of owner

Balbier v. City of Deerfield Beach

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1983-11-16

Citation: 440 So. 2d 523, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 24087

Snippet: abandoned the right-of-way in question. See Section 177.101, Florida Statutes (1981) and Langston v. City of

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1983-08-12

Snippet: POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES PURSUANT TO s 177.101, F.S., DOES A COUNTY HAVE AUTHORITY TO VACATE OR

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1976-01-08

Snippet: 833, 7 A.L.R.3d 602 (Fla. 1963). Thus, section 177.101(4), Florida Statutes, must be construed in light

Ago

Court: Florida Attorney General Reports | Date Filed: 1975-03-18

Snippet: authorizing the vacation of subdivision plats under s.177.101 or s. 163.280, F.S., when the vacating of such

Anderson v. City of North Miami

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1957-12-20

Citation: 99 So. 2d 861

Snippet: thereby. See Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So. 227, wherein we held that a municipality,

Town of Monticello v. Finlayson

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1945-11-16

Citation: 23 So. 2d 843, 156 Fla. 568, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 929

Snippet: Ever since Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177,101 So. 227, and Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Lakeland

Williams v. City of Fernandina

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1939-06-02

Citation: 189 So. 830, 138 Fla. 418, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1418

Snippet: in Florida. Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So. 227. The defendant's answer to paragraphs

Utley v. City of St. Petersburg

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1933-09-20

Citation: 149 So. 806, 111 Fla. 844

Snippet: So. 182; also Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So. 227. The sufficiency of the title to the Act

Davis v. City of Clearwater

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1932-01-12

Citation: 139 So. 825, 104 Fla. 42

Snippet: 754, 86 Sou. Rep. 701; Walters v. Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 Sou. Rep. 227; A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Gainesville

Smoak v. City of Punta Gorda

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1930-10-18

Citation: 130 So. 419, 100 Fla. 904

Snippet: the cases of Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So. R. 227, and Abell v. Town of Boynton, 95 Fla

Parrish v. Hillsborough County

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1929-09-19

Citation: 123 So. 830, 98 Fla. 430

Snippet: Acts of 1923; Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So. R. 227; Chapter 9316, Acts of 1923; Moore

City of Fort Myers v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1928-04-14

Citation: 95 Fla. 704

Snippet: cases cited; Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So. 227; Anderson v. City of Ocala, 67 Fla. 204

City of Fort Myers v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1928-04-14

Citation: 117 So. 97, 95 Fla. 709

Snippet: cases cited; Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So.2d 227; Anderson v. City of Ocala, 67 Fla.

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. City of Lakeland

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1927-08-01

Citation: 115 So. 669, 94 Fla. 347

Snippet: the case of Walters v. City of Tampa, 88 Fla. 177, 101 So.2d Rep. 227. It is presumed that counsel understand