Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Reed

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Reed

332 So. 2d 43, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14346

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 23, 1976

DocketNo. X-483

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 332 So. 2d 43 (Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Reed, 332 So. 2d 43, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14346 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Mid-State Homes (appellant-plaintiff) filed the instant suit to set aside a tax deed and now appeals from an adverse judgment. The issue asserted by Mid-State is that it was the legal titleholder of record and that the clerk of the circuit court failed to give it notice prior to selling the property at a tax deed sale.

On August 18, 1972, Mid-State acquired a certificate of title to the subject property. The certificate did not reflect an address for Mid-State.¹ On September 6, 1973, the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County published and mailed a notice of application for a tax deed to the owner of the property whose name and address appeared on the tax roll for the year in which taxes were last extended on such property.² A tax deed sale was had and certificate of title issued to appellees. Mid-State, in seeking to set aside the tax deed, relies upon Florida Statute 197.256, the “notice” statute, which became effective July 1, 1973. This statute directs the clerk to mail a copy of the notice to:

“ . . . the legal titleholder . of record ... if the address of the owner appears on the record of the conveyance of the lands to the owner, or, if the address of the owner does not appear thereon, then the notice shall be mailed to the owner to whom the property was assessed on the tax roll for the year in which the property was last assessed...."

It is uncontroverted that Florida Statute 197.256 governed the sale of the subject property. Likewise, it is uncontroverted that the address of the legal titleholder of record did not appear on the “record of conveyance”. Paraphrasing the language [44]*44of Bailey v. Folks,3 reading salient words of the statute (F.S. 197.256) in their normal context, we are persuaded that the legislature directed the clerk to mail a copy of the notice to the legal titleholder of record if the address of the owner appears on the record of the conveyance, and if the address does not appear thereon, the notice shall be mailed to the owner to whom the property was last assessed.

In the instant cause, the critical address was not shown on the conveyance of record, therefore, the clerk fulfilled his duty when he mailed the notice to the owner to whom the property was last assessed.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

RAWLS, Acting Chief Judge.

Mid-State Homes (appellant-plaintiff) filed the instant suit to set aside a tax deed and now appeals from an adverse judgment. The issue asserted by Mid-State is that it was the legal titleholder of record and that the clerk of the circuit court failed to give it notice prior to selling the property at a tax deed sale.

On August 18, 1972, Mid-State acquired a certificate of title to the subject property. The certificate did not reflect an address for Mid-State.¹ On September 6, 1973, the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Volusia County published and mailed a notice of application for a tax deed to the owner of the property whose name and address appeared on the tax roll for the year in which taxes were last extended on such property.² A tax deed sale was had and certificate of title issued to appellees. Mid-State, in seeking to set aside the tax deed, relies upon Florida Statute 197.256, the “notice” statute, which became effective July 1, 1973. This statute directs the clerk to mail a copy of the notice to:

“ . . . the legal titleholder . of record ... if the address of the owner appears on the record of the conveyance of the lands to the owner, or, if the address of the owner does not appear thereon, then the notice shall be mailed to the owner to whom the property was assessed on the tax roll for the year in which the property was last assessed...."

It is uncontroverted that Florida Statute 197.256 governed the sale of the subject property. Likewise, it is uncontroverted that the address of the legal titleholder of record did not appear on the “record of conveyance”. Paraphrasing the language [44]*44of Bailey v. Folks,3 reading salient words of the statute (F.S. 197.256) in their normal context, we are persuaded that the legislature directed the clerk to mail a copy of the notice to the legal titleholder of record if the address of the owner appears on the record of the conveyance, and if the address does not appear thereon, the notice shall be mailed to the owner to whom the property was last assessed.

In the instant cause, the critical address was not shown on the conveyance of record, therefore, the clerk fulfilled his duty when he mailed the notice to the owner to whom the property was last assessed.

AFFIRMED.

MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 So. 2d 43, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-state-homes-inc-v-reed-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack