Maidel De Armas v. Emilio De Armas

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 2, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0240

Lower Tribunal No. 24-6193-CA-01

________________

Maidel de Armas, Geidy Rodriguez, Janet de Armas, and Emilio de Armas, Appellants,

vs.

Emilio de Armas,

Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

Law Office of Michael Garcia Petit, P.A., and Michael Garcia Petit (Miramar), for appellants.

BGV LAW PLLC, and Ramsey Villalon, for appellee.

Before MILLER, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.

GOODEN, J.

This case presents a dispute among family members over who owns the subject property. The rub is two family members—father and son—have the same name: Emilio de Armas.

The son filed suit for quiet title, among other things. The trial court granted summary judgment in his favor. The father and his daughters challenge that order. 1 They assert that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to which Emilio de Armas the 2021 quitclaim deed identifies. We agree.

To prevail on a quiet title action, a plaintiff must demonstrate: 1) legal title to the property in controversy; 2) a cloud on the title; and 3) that the defendant’s claim to title is invalid. Stark v. Frayer, 67 So. 2d 237, 239 (Fla. 1953); Brecht v. Bur-Ne Co., 108 So. 173, 176 (Fla. 1926). But one thing is certain: “[A] party must have title to a property to bring an action to quiet title. With no title, there is nothing to be quieted.” Barclay v. Robert C. Malt & Co., Inc., 985 So. 2d 53, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). See also Hill v. Da Costa, 61 So. 750, 751 (Fla. 1913) (“In proceedings to remove a cloud upon title to real

1 We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). See also Luke Invs., Inc. v. Camelot Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. ex rel. Unit Owners of Camelot, 974 So. 2d 433, 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

3

estate, the complainant must show with clearness, accuracy, and certainty the validity of his own title. . . .”).

To establish his title, the son relies upon the 2021 quit claim deed identifying Emilio de Armas. Because the father and son share the same name, the deed presents a latent ambiguity. See Ace Elec. Supply Co. v. Terra Nova Elec., Inc., 288 So. 2d 544, 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). To resolve a latent ambiguity, a court may consider parol evidence, and the trial court did so here. See L’Engle v. Scottish Union & Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 37 So. 462, 467 (Fla. 1904); Solary v. Webster, 17 So. 646, 649 (Fla. 1895). But the parol evidence concerning which Emilio de Armas was the grantee conflicted. Cf. Decoplage Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Deco Props. & Invs., Inc., 971 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“Moreover, a trial court may interpret a contract as a matter of law only when it is totally unambiguous or when any ambiguity may be resolved by undisputed parol evidence of the parties’ intent.”). That conflict created a genuine dispute of material fact, thereby precluding summary judgment. City of Lake Worth v. Viera, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1490 (Fla. 4th DCA July 22, 2026).

Accordingly, the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on the quiet title action. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.