CopyCited 36 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...Clark, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, Tampa, for Humble Oil & Refining Co., amicus curiae. ROBERTS, Justice. This cause reaches us on two interlocutory appeals and a certificate of the trial court which poses as dispositive of the litigation two questions raising the constitutionality of Florida Statute, Section 704.05, F.S.A....
...Helliwell subsequently by instrument dated October 23, 1967, conveyed to Compass Rose Corporation all of the right, title and interest to mineral rights and other privileges conveyed by Trustees of Tufts College to Helliwell. The controversy in the instant action arose from the enactment of Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. During the 1970 Legislative session, the Florida Legislature promulgated Chapter 70-100, now carried forward as Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. the construction *524 and constitutionality vel non of which are presently at issue before us in this cause. F.S. Section 704.05, F.S.A., which became effective October 1, 1970, provides: "704.05 Easements and rights of entry....
...ee forever clearing and confirming the removal of said rights from the title to the said real estate." On November 30, 1970, Triple R. Ranch filed suit in Osceola County Circuit Court against Tufts College and Compass Rose alleging that by virtue of Section 704.05, it, the appellee, was entitled to the entry of a decree forever clearing and confirming the removal of the aforesaid rights of entry and easements as encumbrances on their title....
...In opposition, the appellants contended that the statute in question was unconstitutional, and appellants moved for dismissal and for judgment on the pleadings, which motions were denied. Subsequently, appellants separately sought interlocutory appeals to this Court. 1. Should Section
704.05 be applied retrospectively? 2. If applicable, is Section
704.05 constitutional under the Florida and United States Constitutions? All three matters are consolidated here for disposition. This Court has jurisdiction of this cause, Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution 1973, F.S.A., F.A.R. 4.6, 32 F.S.A. Jaworski v. The City of Opa-Locka,
149 So.2d 33 (Fla. 1963). If Section
704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is not to be applied retroactively then it will be unnecessary for us to resolve the second question since the statute will not be applicable to the facts of the instant case....
...he language in In Re Seven Barrels, supra, that a statute should not be given retrospective effect when it jeopardizes the validity of the statute. The interest involved in the instant case which would be divested by the retrospective application of Section 704.05 is a valuable property interest....
...provides that `private property [may not] be taken without just compensation. * * *' That an easement constitutes property within the protection of the above constitutional provision has long been established in Florida." Since valuable vested rights may be destroyed by retrospective application of Section 704.05, the rule that statutes will not be construed retroactively unless such construction was plainly and clearly intended by the Legislature applies with particular force to the construction of Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
...The statute may not be relied upon until "after the twenty year period has expired". The critical distinction between the Marketable Record Title Act and the statute in question is that under the former the holder of the right by mere expression may continue it. Section 704.05 contains no savings clause as is contained in the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, also Chapter 63-133, Laws of Florida 1963, whereby one affected could merely refile his claim to preserve it. Section 704.05, the law here involved, provides no opportunity for those in a similar circumstance to appellees to save their rights from forfeiture, or in other words, no savings clause which would provide a method for owners of easements in connection with mineral rights to effectively preserve their property rights. If Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., should be applied retroactively, it would give the affected persons no opportunity to avoid the consequences thereof by rearranging their affairs. The language employed by the Legislature in the Marketable Record Title Act, Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, is substantially dissimilar from the wording in Section 704.05, and did indeed lend itself to a construction by the courts of retroactive application....
...Such a saving provision affords no remedy to those situated like appellant, where breach of the covenant has not accrued, so as to actuate the enforcement of the right of reverter." Under the rules of statutory interpretation established by this Court, Section 704.05, must be interpreted as having only prospective operation....
...ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion. BOYD, J., dissents and agrees with ERVIN, J. ERVIN, Justice (dissenting): We have before us in these consolidated interlocutory appeals the following questions certified to us from the Circuit Court of Osceola County: 1. Should Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., be applied retrospectively? 2. If applicable, is Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, constitutional under the Florida and United States constitutions? The section, which became effective October 1, 1970, provides: "(1) The rights of entry, or of an easement, given or reserved in any conveyance or dev...
...pellee, Triple R. Ranch, Inc. In 1971 Triple R. Ranch filed suit in the Osceola County Circuit Court against Tufts College and Compass Rose, alleging the easements and rights of entry were never exercised and should be removed under the authority of Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A....
...The motions were denied, and they filed this interlocutory appeal. Shortly thereafter, the trial court certified its questions. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Section 4(2), Florida Constitution. The first question is whether the Legislature intended for Section 704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to be applied retrospectively to extinguish unused easements reserved prior to the effective date of the Act....
...constitutionality. For a statute to be applied retroactively, "its terms [must] show clearly that such an effect was intended." In re Seven Barrels of Wine, 1920,
79 Fla. 1,
83 So. 627, 632. That the Legislature did intend retroactive application of Section
704.05 is obvious when that section is compared with other Florida statutes....
...On the other hand, in Sections
695.11 [2] and 695.24, [3] for example, the *530 Legislature clearly indicated retroactive application was inappropriate by stating the sections were not applicable to recordings made prior to the statutes' effective dates. It seems clear that had the Legislature intended that Section
704.05 be prospective only, it would have specifically provided that the section was applicable solely to reservations made after October 1, 1970....
...Instead, the Legislature indicated its retrospective intent by stating without qualification that the section is applicable to all unused easements that are at least twenty years old. The first question, therefore, should be answered in the affirmative. The second question, i.e., whether a retroactive application of Section 704.05 is constitutional, is the primary issue in this cause....
...Scurlock, Retroactive Legislation Affecting Interests in Land, 1953; Smead, "The Rule Against Retroactive Legislation: A Basic Principle of Jurisprudence, 1936, 20 Minn.L.Rev. 775; Smith, "Retroactive Laws and Vested Rights," 1927, 5 Tex.L.Rev. 231. Appellants contend a retroactive application of Section 704.05 will both unconstitutionally impair the obligation of contracts and deny due process....
...blic health or safety is not an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation or without due process of law. [citations omitted]" Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. City of Goldsboro, 1914,
232 U.S. 548, 558,
34 S.Ct. 364, 368,
58 L.Ed. 721. Section
704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., therefore, should be held constitutional if it is a reasonable and appropriate exercise of the State of Florida's police power....
...To so hold would preclude development and fix a city forever in its primitive conditions. There must be progress, and if in its march private interests are in the way they must yield to the good of the community." Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 1915,
239 U.S. 394, 410,
36 S.Ct. 143, 145,
60 L.Ed. 348. That Section
704.05 was enacted pursuant to the police power vested in the State of Florida is clear....
...In addition, we have previously held constitutional other legislation removing interests in land. H.K.L. Realty Corp. v. Kirtley, Fla. 1954,
74 So.2d 876; Basye, Clearing Land Titles, supra, at Section 87. The primary object of the Legislature in enacting F.S. section
704.05 F.S.A....
...be deemed by courts of equity to be extinguished by abandonment, non-user, non-exercise or adverse possession, etc., without there being prescribed therefor any specific statutory period of limitation. It is, of course, quite apparent the object of Section 704.05 is not to revive easement or entry rights which stand equitably extinguished without the statute's benefit. Attention is called to the evils or problems which it is obvious the Legislature sought to remedy or rectify by the enactment of Section 704.05 and of which this Court can take judicial notice....
...ace of lands. Oil spills are devastating menaces to marine life. It is little wonder in view of the excessive leasing of underlying minerals in state lands and sovereignty areas by State officials in earlier years that the Legislature in 1970 passed Section 704.05 in an effort to require either early exercise of the rights granted or in the alternative that those rights be subject to removal as clouds because of non-user or abandonment in order that there might be an end put to the nuisance potential of these long-existing but unexercised oil and gas leases. In passing, it seems appropriate to note that as to the State's reserved rights in minerals which have not been leased or otherwise transferred by the State into the private sector, Section 704.05 should be held to extinguish any of such reserved rights which were reserved in instruments of record for twenty years or more....
...The large majority of these instruments by their terms extend perpetually, forever clouding titles and posing a threat to the full enjoyment of surface ownerships throughout future years. It seems reasonable from the conditions noted that the Legislature by F.S. Section 704.05, F.S.A....
...h surface owners on the basis of current conditions, for such things as: revisions affording better protection of surface rights, or to require modern-day royalty values for minerals, or adjustment of taxes, etc. The Legislature, by the enactment of Section 704.05, no doubt took into consideration the fact that most existing long-term oil and gas and other mineral rights instruments contained no built-in incentives or prods for the early exercise of such rights by their owners or the surrender of same if there was no intention to ever exercise such rights. One of the effects of Section 704.05 was to speed up the exercise of such rights or their surrender....
...nt. Allen v. Greenberg, 21 Misc.2d 763, 195 N.Y.S.2d 287. Compare Bryant v. Lovett, Fla. 1967,
201 So.2d 720, 725. Mineral rights may become extinguished by nonuser. Mays v. Hansbro, 222 La. 957,
64 So.2d 232. Because the public policies behind F.S. Section
704.05, F.S.A....
...are virtually identical to those behind marketable title acts and *535 the Rule Against Perpetuities, it is logical to conclude the section constitutes an appropriate exercise of Florida's police power. The only remaining question is whether in upholding Section 704.05 equity should judicially require a reasonable time of grace before the cancellation authority of the state takes effect absolutely....
...Section
712.09, F.S.A., afforded "two full years for all persons having interests in real property to become acquainted with the purpose and operation of the Act and take any steps which may be needed to protect their interests." Basye, supra, at Section 187. This case is the original consideration by this Court of Section
704.05....
...dered by the Court without benefit of a limitation statute because it was found justified by equitable considerations only. Similarly, it is my view that in this case we may equitably avoid hardship and at the same time save the constitutionality of Section 704.05 by decreeing a reasonable extension or grace period softening the statute's retroactive application. *536 With the foregoing principles of equity in mind with respect to retroactivity, I think we should direct that as to all instruments contemplated by F.S. Section 704.05, F.S.A., which have been of record twenty years or more as of the date of the decision herein, as well as those which will have been recorded for twenty years or more during the next five years, their owners should have five years from the date of the decision herein to exercise their rights under such instruments. As to all instruments contemplated by Section 704.05 which shall have been recorded for twenty years or more after the expiration of five years from the date of the decision herein, no grace or extension period should be afforded since the owners thereof would have had at least five years' notice of this decision. Inasmuch as Section 704.05 by its terms provides for the enforcement in equity courts of the limitation therein upon the rights of entry or easement for mining, etc., purposes, such courts have reasonable powers to relieve against hardship by applying a five-yea...
...The related evils and conditions inimical to the public welfare clearly indicate enlightened regulatory legislation is constitutionally justified to cope with changed conditions in a modern, growing, state. Apparently even from the inconclusive language of the majority, it is their view Section 704.05 could have been given retroactive effect if the Legislature had chosen to provide a grace period therein similarly as in the Marketable Title Act....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida
...This appeal has been transferred to us by the District Court of Appeal, First District, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 2.1, subd. a(5), 32 F.S.A. The decision of the Circuit Court of Levy County sought to be reviewed holds Florida Statute § *261 704.05, [1] F.S.A., unconstitutional, thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court under Section 3 of Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A....
...said lands, adverse to the title of Plaintiffs, and that said appellees be perpetually enjoined and restrained from in any way disturbing the possession, enjoyment, use, title, or interest in said lands by Plaintiffs. By virtue of Florida Statutes, Section
704.05, F.S.A., appellants contended that they were entitled to the entry of a decree forever clearing and confirming the removal of the aforesaid rights-of-entry and easements on their title. To the complaint, appellees filed their motion to dismiss alleging that Section
704.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., was unconstitutional because it violated several enumerated provisions of the Florida Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and explicitly declared Section
704.05 to be unconstitutional because it impairs contracts in existence, deprives property owners of their property without due process, and of their inalienable right to process and protect their property in violation of both the Federal and Florida Constitution. This Court's very recent decision in Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc. et al.,
275 So.2d 521, filed March 21, 1973, wherein this Court succinctly opined that Section
704.05 would not be given retroactive application is clearly dispositive of this cause presently before us....
...[2] *262 Although the trial court has expressly passed upon the validity of the statute in question, such determination was not required for the disposition of this litigation and therefore, we do not reach the issue of the constitutionality vel non of the Florida Statutes 704.05, F.S.A., at this time....
...Moreover, the efficient and speedy administration of justice is thereby promoted, and any part of the opinion in the Carroll case, supra, which may be construed to be in conflict with these conclusions is receded from." Since we have held that Florida Statute 704.05, F.S.A., does not operate retrospectively, (see Trustees of Tufts College v....
...ERVIN, J., dissents with Opinion. BOYD, J., dissents. ERVIN, Justice (dissenting). I dissent for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Trustees of Tufts College v. Triple R. Ranch, Inc., Fla.,
275 So.2d 521, filed March 21, 1973. NOTES [1] Florida Statutes, Section
704.05, F.S.A., which became effective October 1, 1970 provides, "
704.05 Easements and rights of entry....
