Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
10Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
John E. Steele, Civil RICO, And the Florida Bar - Cayo Costa Gate

John E. Steele, Civil RICO, And the Florida Bar - Cayo Costa Gate

Ratings: (0)|Views: 441 |Likes:
Published by Judicial_Fraud
JOHN E. STEELE PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIAL
JOHN E. STEELE PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIAL

More info:

Published by: Judicial_Fraud on Jul 24, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 BEHIND BAR(S):
 
 
 
BRING TO MEETING
REAL PROPERTY, PROBATE & TRUST LAW SECTIO
 www.rpptl.org
 Executive Council Meeting
 
AGENDA
 
Ritz Carlton Key Biscayne455 Grand Bay DriveKey Biscayne, FL 33149(305) 365-4500
Saturday, September 20, 200810:
3
0 a.m.
BRING TO THE MEETING
 
 
The Florida Bar Proposed August 2008
STANDARD 11.5ABANDONMENT OF STREET ON PLATTED LAND
STANDARD: WHEN AN INTERIOR STREET DEDICATED BY PLAT IS DISCONTINUEDTHROUGH LEGAL PROCESS AND TITLE TO, OR THE “REVERSIONARY INTEREST” IN,THE STREET HAS NOT BEEN NOT PROPERLY RESERVED TO THE DEDICATOR, FEETITLE TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE STREET ABUTTING A LOT IS IN THE LOT OWNER,SUBJECT TO ANY PRIVATE EASEMENT RIGHTS, SUCH THAT TITLE TO THE STREET ISENCUMBERED BY THE LOT OWNER’S MORTGAGE OF THE LOT, UNLESS PROVIDEDOTHERWISE IN THE CONVEYANCE OR MORTGAGE.
Problem: Veronese Street, a dedicated interior street in the Blackacre subdivision, was vacatedby theCity. John Doe owned a lot in Blackacre which abutted Veronese Street. There was no effectivereservation of title to, or the reversionary interest in, Veronese Street. John Doe claimed fee titleto the centerline of the street. Was his claim of title valid?Answer: Yes, subject to any private easement rights.Authorities& References:
 New Fort Pierce Hotel Co. v. Phoenix Title Corp.
, 171 So. 525 (1936);
Smith v. Horn
, 70 So.435 (1915);
Florida S. Ry. v. Brown
, 1 So. 512 (1887);
 Burkart v. City of Ft. Lauderdale
, 168So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1964);
 Dean v. MOD Properties, Ltd.
, 528 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5
th
DCA 1988);
Calvert v. Morgan
, 436 So. 2d 314 (Fla 1st DCA 1983);
 Hurt v. Lenchuk 
, 233 So. 2d 350 (Fla.4th DCA 1969); ATIF TN 24.01.01.Comment: As the conveyance of lots by reference to a plat may create private easement rights in adjoininglot owners, these rights should be considered in addition to public easement rights whenanalyzing the abandonment of a street.
See
Comment to Standard 11.4. When the street is onthe periphery of the plat and the dedicator does not, at the time of the plat, own the landon theother side of the street outside of the plat and does not reserve title to, or the “reversionaryinterest” in, the street, the abutting lot owner will take the entire width of the streetuponvacation of the street, subject to any private easement rights.
 
Title to the underlying fee of astreet on the periphery of the plat is otherwise subject to the all of standards applicable to title tointerior streets, but caution should be observed when analyzing periphery streets as theyfrequently run along bodies of water and this may raise separate issues of submerged lands andmay implicate riparian rights.
See, e.g.,
 
Caples v. Taliaferro
, 197 So. 861 (Fla. 1940).Standards 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5 treat closely related issues and should be read together for a fullunderstanding of title to streets dedicated by plat.
 
65

Activity (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Ren liked this
Ren liked this
Albertelli_Law liked this
JUDICIAL TERROR liked this
Hashi Moshi liked this
Hashi Moshi liked this
hashi3 liked this
Judicial_Fraud liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->