Trustees Of the Internal Improvement Trust
Fund
State of
Florida
Murphy Act Road Reservations
Release Florida Statute 253.82 (1993)
Florida
Fifth District Court Of Appeals (1990) Rapes Florida
Citizens
By Pastor G. Reckart
Florida Statute 253.82: History s. 1 ch 72-268; s. 3. ch 84-197; former s 197.391.
F.S. 253.82 (5) History s. 2.ch 84-197; s 6 ch 91-56.
I will post links at the end of this page that contain the former legislations relative to the present inquiry.
The provisions of this Statute in (1)(a)(b) provides for legislative release of "ALL" Murphy Act road easements reserved on parcels owned by a person other than the state. There is a long history of the language of this statute going back at least to legislation passed that became law on June 15, 1953. The present law is the successor of Chapter 197.387 (1981).
The property owner of a parcel encumbered by the Murphy Act road reservation could extinguish the claim on the mineral and petroleum reservations and road easement by following the law in F.S. 253.82 (1)(b). If a property owner followed this law he/she would not need to apply to the TIITF Board for release of the reservations.
Here is an image of this Statute:
The legislative release of Murphy Act road easements provides the property owner a means to remove these ancient and unfair clouds on their title.
In 1937 the Murphy Act provided authority to the State of Florida to take possession of tax delinquent lands and to sell these parcels at public auction and deed them out. They would then appear on the tax rolls as owned by a person other then the state. They would return to being taxable.
In 1940 the TIITF Board voted to reserve road easements for the State Road Department and the Attorney General would draft the language (Trustee Minutes May 1, 1940). This reservation would be placed on all deeds to be conveyed under the Murphy Act.
Murphy Act parcels then being sold were conveyed with the 200 foot road easements reserved.
On November 9, 1943 the TIITF Board voted that the reservation would ONLY be upon those parcels deeded out that contained a tract or composite tract aggregating TEN ACRES or more.
A different interpretation of this TEN ACRE clause made it necessary to settle the arguments between the State of Florida and the citizen property owners. This resulted in the legislation before you contained in (1)(a)(b).
Now as to (5) and the words: "This section does not affect the validity of previous conveyances of Murphy Act lands by the board of trustees or previous reservations or restrictions in such conveyances made prior to July 1, 1991."
What (1)(a)(b) does for the property owner has nothing to do with challenging the validity of a deed but rather the release of the reservations on valid deeds. So "validity" is not the focus of (1)(a)(b) at all. Nor does (1)(a)(b) challenge the validity of the reservation(s) on a valid deed. When (1)(a)(b) is clearly understood, the law provides for release of valid reservations contained on valid deeds. Paragraph (5) underscores my continued claim that 1(a)(b) is about release of reservations that were retained by the state on conveyances of Murphy Act deeds. Subparagraph 5 concerns itself with "previous conveyances of Murphy Act lands" and by this language means those parcels DEEDED OUT prior to July 1, 1991. For FDEP or the TIITF Board to say (1)(a)(b) does not concern itself with parcels deeded out, but rather those "not deeded out," subparagraph 5 would contain nothing relative to subparagraph 1. Subparagraph (1)(a)(b) has to do with reservations thought to exist on certain properties but not recorded on a sale deed because no sale took place and no deed was issued. FDEP claims (1)(a)(b) concerns itself only with properties NOT DEEDED OUT but somehow exist in the name of a private party. I want to point out that where there is no deed there is no legal reservation recorded that needs released. What would be needed is simply a deed. But since none was ever given by the Grantor THERE NEVER WAS A RESERVATION filed aginst the property. Now subparagraph (5) cannot relate to this situation BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONVEYANCE. If this was the intent of the legislation it is not spelled out. However, in my proposed legislation I SPELL IT OUT. Subparagraph 1(a)(b) is then directed by language at legal reservations and legal reservations are recorded on deeds and filed of public record. Where there is no recorded public record of a reservation encumbering a property it does not exist. Motions of a Board, even the TIITF Board, cannot be considered a valid legal reservation until something is fixed on a deed and recorded. Therefore, subparagraph (5) does not in any way affect the release of State held interest in the land or in the mineral rights to be released in subparagraph (1)(a)(b).
The 253.82 legislation is very simple and I shall here cite the short title as it appeared in the records of the Florida Legislature- Regular Session - 1984, History of House Bills, Page 280:
H 0855 GENERAL BILL by Peeples (Similar Eng/ S
0503)
Murphy Act Lands: provide for release of state's interest in certain lands:
providing for recording certain tax payment certificates & provides that
certificates are conclusive evidence of payment extinguishing certain
claims & liens against such lands, etc. Amends Ch. 197; creates 253.82.
Effective Date 10/01/84.
Please notice that this legislation has no connection at all to Chapter 80-228 (1980) enacted by the legislature. Just because paragraph 5 of F.S. 253.82 is the same or near the same as paragraph 4 of F.S. 197.387(4), does not mean F.S. 253.82 is a streamlined procedure releasing the state's interest in Chapter 80-228.
Florida Fifth District Court Of Appeals (1990) Rapes Florida Citizens
In County of Volusia v. Larry Bach and Sam Gabbi, Fifth District Judge Griffin (Harris, and Peterson, JJ., concur): falsely interpreted F.S. 253.82 (1)(a). The judge ruled that F.S. 253.82(4) expressed an intent on the part of the legislature to protect prior conveyances of Murphy Act lands and the reservations for road right of way, oil, gas, and minerals. The judge purposely perverted the meaning of the word "validity." He took this word to mean that the "reservations" on Murphy Act deeds were considered valid and paragraph (1)(a) was not designed to release these via the tax collector's certificate. This is false.
Such ruling raped the citizens of Florida of rights in private property that (1)(a) released to the title holder of record. What is the error of these judges? It is this: when Murphy Act lands are held by the state and not deeded out, the state holds title in fee simple as vested by Chapter 18296, Laws of Florida. Since these lands have not been deeded out, there is no reservation of record on road right of way, oil, gas, or minerals. No reservations were reserved. True, the state holds these lands as State lands, not as "public lands" and holds the whole bundle of rights. These lands by Chapter 18296 are held in fee simple by the State with foreclose of all adverse claims against the State's ownership on October 1, 1985 (see F.S. 253.82 (2)(c). If an alleged owner claimed fee in a parcel that reverted to the State under the Murphy Act, and even if he held it in his name on the property rolls, if his claim was not asserted by October 1, 1985 he was barred from ever making a claim. For the judges to claim in 1990, nine years after foreclosure, that F.S. 253.82(1)(a) applied to these individuals after October 1, 1985, and they could go around the bar and still obtain the fee title to the property, is false. Otherwise the intended legislative bar is no bar at all.
F.S. 252.82(1)(a) and the language of it releases all Murphy Act rights in the land to the current owner of record if the property taxes had been paid for twenty years since January 1. 1964 (amended to January 1, 1971) . The statute says "The interest of the state in any land." The word "interest" here means any and all rights and title, including reservations for road easement. If an easement has not been deeded out it remains an interest of the state. If such property is on the tax rolls in a name other than the State, then all INTEREST reserved, owned, or held, by the State would be released per filing of the certificate. The word "any" here means all land affected by the Murphy Act and not just properties NOT DEEDED OUT! If this statute was for only those not deeded out it would have contained this simple language.
Now why did the Legislature pick 20 years and the time-frame for which a property owner had to prove payment of taxes? Obviously the intent was to parallel the same time period necessary for claim of an easement by adverse possession. Adverse possession is today a seven year claim whereas at the time of the 1984 legislation the claim for an easement reservation Florida Statutes require a twenty year time period (see F.S. 95.16; 95.18). By placing the 20 year time period in the statute the Legislature had in mind that a Judge of competence would make the connection and apply the same rules of evidence. At least he could consult Black's Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) for Florida adverse possession time frame and apply this. In the case of F.S. 253.82 (1)(a), the intent was to release to citizens all the rights and interest the state held under via the Murphy Act. Since all prior Murphy Act conveyances had been previously bared as to any possible litigation, the legislature did not want this statute to effect those bared in such a way as to change any prior conveyances or court rulings. The whole idea of 20 years in the statute was to apply the adverse possession time period of open and hostile occupation, during which time the holder of an interest did not protest. Why can't there be competence on the bench these days? Let me tell you in this instance why not. The Judge was influenced by the perversion interpretations put into his ear by FDEP agents. He put into his ruling nearly word for word what Jack Wolff told me a few years before his ruling came thundering down. The Judge was wrong and his ruling needs corrected.
Would someone tell Brigham, Moore, Gaylord, Wilson, Ulmer, Schuster & Sachs of Tampa, to stay out of the court room on Murphy Act road issues. They shystered the Kortum case (88-20342 HC; 90-01659 2d); on Murphy Act issues and they shystered the Bach/Gabbai case (89-1063 2d) on F.S. 253.82. In both cases, this law firm was inept in my opinion. In eminent domain cases I think they should reserve themselves to paper pushing and negotiations for clients and let some other competent attorney deal with Murphy Act issues in the Court Room.
I disagree with Jacob and Fields "Murphy's Law, A Review Crisis Spawns Title Uncertainty, 16 Stetson L.Rev. 227, 258-259 (1987)", that F.S. 253.82(1)(a) was not intended to release road right-of-ways. This is the danger of supposed experts who do not take the time to know clearly about that which they write. Stetson is a distinguished school of law and this kind of sloppy interpretation is disrespectful to its name not to mention gave support to the rape of private property rights of the people of Florida affected by Murphy Act reservations. I call on Stetson Law School to issue a better interpretation of the statute and right this 19 year old travesty of injustice.
The legislator
who sponsored the F.S. 253.82(1)(a) legislation was the Honorable Vernon
E. Peeples of Punta Gorda, Florida (served 1984-1996). I called and
talked to him personally in 1997 about his legislation. I asked him
specifically why he submitted the Bill that changed the language of F.S.
197.387 and what he had hoped to accomplish by it. He told me he submitted
the Bill by request of several title companies, attorneys, and private property
owners. The purpose for the Bill was to give all property owner a means to
extinguish the Murphy Act reservations on properties held in fee simple by
a person other then the state upon which it could be proven ad valorem taxes
had been paid since 1971.
In my long conversation he could not remember all the history of the law but explained that land owners had paid taxes on these government reservations since the 1940s and it was not fair that taxes be paid on something the property owner thought he purchased but yet the government claims to own a road easement reservation and them come back later and claim the land for free and not pay fair compensation. The properties were on the tax rolls as owned by a citizen, they had surveys that did not show the easement because information then circulating said they were not valid on parcels less then ten acres, yet the state was still claiming an interest in the 40 year old reservations. He did not think this was fair and agreed to sponsor legislation his first year in the House to fix this problem.
I mentioned that the state had done nothing with the majority of these reservations for over forty years. Many of the state roads adjacent to these encumbered properties had been removed from the State Road Highway System in 1978 and in 1983. At issue that could not seemed to be resolved was if these road reservations were for State Roads only and if not used for State Roads were they extinguished without need of application to the TIITF Board and obtaining a deed granting back the reservation to the current title owner of record. Representative Peeples acknowledged he submitted his Bill to extinguish these reservation clouds by legislation and that is why several other prior legislations were repealed by his Bill. There is precedent in case law that state lands ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS. There is case law that Murphy Act lands are STATE LANDS, not public lands. This means State held road right of ways are STATE right of ways and not public right of ways. If any judge rules that a State land reservation is the same as public land reservation, he is false! This applies to Judge Jerry Parker's ruling in Hillsborough County v. Kortum, in which he takes the language of 1975 legislation which reclassified some previous state roads as either "State highways, state park roads, county roads, and city streets" and now calls State lands (Murphy Act lands and reservations) public lands. There is no way this interpretation was that understood by the grantor and the grantee at the time of the Murphy conveyances. Judge Parker should have confined his ruling to the existing language and understanding of state roads at the time of the conveyance. For him to use 1975 reclassification wording, classes that did not exist at the time of the conveyance, is false. I would like to see his ruling applied now to oil, gas, and mineral rights reserved on these State lands as public assets in which the counties and cities have a right!
Following the legislation that became law, all that a property owner need do was go to the Tax Collector and have him file a Certificate with the Clerk of Circuit Court that the taxes had been paid on the property since January 1, 1971. Once this Certificate was filed this would serve as "conclusive evidence" that the taxes had been paid and this would instantly kick in the release of all rights in the land held by the TIITF Board under the Murphy Act. Representative Peeples told me that he intended the proof of paid taxes be from 1971 to 1984 the year of his passage of the Bill, the 20 year previous time period WAS NOT A PART OF HIS BILL. That requirement in previous Statutes was REPEALED. However, he did say there should be no problem with a Tax Collector showing taxes paid for 20 years from 1971.
Mr. Peeples I wish it had been that simple and your great legislation had its desired effect. Sorry to say this wonderful provision has been gutted and made null and none effect by lies, misrepresentations, and fraud. The people of the State of Florida continue to suffer. Last year title companies paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements on omitted TIITF reservations that should have long ago been extinguished. Here is a copy of the Certificate as Representative Peeples envisioned them back in 1984:
There is one error on this deed, the date of ISSUANCE was June 6, 1944. This deed was corrected and refiled.
Make sure all the information is correct including the Murphy Act Sale Certificate Number, or TIITF Deed Number. I have all the TIITF Deeds for Hillsborough County, Florida on Microfiche.
Now according to Representative Peeples this Certificate should make null and void any and all claims by the State of Florida Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.
I made my action and getting the Certificate filed known to Mr. Jack Wolff and he told me the Certificate was worthless. A couple other property owners went to the Tax Collector and had a Certificate filed on their properties. Mr. Wolff called Melvin Smith, the Tax Collector, and instructed him not to file any more of these Certificates. So he refused to file them for others who went and tried.
I went in to see Mr. Smith about this and his aid, Barbara Clites was there with him. I asked him to please send a request to the Attorney General and ask for an AGO on the validity of these Certificates and if indeed the reservations were extinguished if taxes had been paid per the Florida Statutes. Mr. Smith said he would not do it. He said the information given to him by Mr. Wolff was sufficient in his mind that the Certificates were worthless.
I was so angry I called the State's Attorneys office to see if I could find a way to sue Mr. Smith for performance of his constitution office and if there were any damages to me or another property owner, we could sue against the bond insuring performance of his office. The State's Attorney as I suspected would have nothing to do with it.
I await my day in court and or through appeals on this Certificate matter and plan to depose a lot of people.
Mr. Wolff claims that the lands to be released under F.S. 253.82 had nothing to do with Murphy Act deeds. According to him and the interpretation of the TIITF Board, this Statute continued the language of F.S. 197.387 (1980) and released land that continued to show on the property tax rolls from 1933 to 1984 in the name of property owners although it was actually owned by the state since they were never deeded out. In other words, he is claiming the state took the lands for delinquent taxes but the owner and subsequent purchasers continued in chain of title as owners and paid taxes, and these parcels were never placed for sale among the other Murphy Act auctions. Mr. Wolff said it was these "unconveyed" lands that were to be released by F.S. 253.82 (1984). Mr. Wolff should know that when a law is amended the wording dropped no longer has meaning in the new law. Trying to interpret F.S. 253.82 (1994) according to F.S. 197.387 (1980) is therefore wrong.
I asked Mr. Wolff if he would provide me a list of these unconveyed Murphy Act parcels in Hillsborough County that fell into this so-called unconveyed group of state lands? Such a list does exist. He told me there was no such list. I asked him if he could provide me a list of all the properties taken for delinquent taxes in Hillsborough County from 1933 to 1945? He told me there was no such list? I asked him why the TIITF Board insisted a list of returned tax certificates be provided to them in its September 17, 1940 meeting, and if no list exists how did they determine which properties to deed out as Murphy Act properties? He did not respond. I ask Mr. Wolff if he could show me a list of properties he had information on that would be identified as owned by the state but title was in the name of the original owner or his/her successor in title and had not been deeded out? He said he had none. I asked him then if he could show me just one property the Certificates were filed on that this legislation affected like he was interpreting it? He said no he could not. I then asked him why a Representative would seek legislative relief for an issue that did not exist and for so-called property owners no one knew anything about? He would not answer! I told him I had spoken to Representative Peeples about this and he told me his legislation was for people who had Murphy Act reservations on property deeded to them. He said the language of the legislation releases what was reserved. Mr. Peeples questioned how there could be a reservation on a property on which none had been reserved since it had not been deeded out? I agreed with Representative Peeples. I asked this to Mr. Wolff: How sir can there be a reservation on a property taken under the Murphy Act that had never been deeded out and not reserved in the conveyance? He would not answer!
As you can see, the state is not being honest in the correct interpretation of the current statute. All this deception is used for one purpose and that is to continue the 60+ year old land fraud HIGHWAY ROBBERY swindle against the people of Florida. It is time for relief and I mean total relief. How many thousands of property owners would have had these Certificates filed and their land cleared of this cloud had it not been for the lies and misrepresentations of the State of Florida? Title companies would not have had to pay out millions of dollars in settlements to subsidize road building cost where the state, county, or city could then take the easement for free.
Many have not availed themselves of their legal remedy by filing this Certificates because of the misrepresentations of Mr. Wolff and his employer FDEP and the TIITF Board. Because there are few Certificates recorded; the State, County, and City have an unlocked door to come in and rob the property owner of his homestead, his home, his property value, and seize part of his/her land without a warrant to take it. I am still not sure just how protective the "homestead" is on this kind of seizure. I have never heard of a homestead defense against seizure of a claimed TIITF easement on which taxes have been paid. The homestead is on the whole property including a so-called easement. Does paying taxes on a homstead on which there is a reservation give greater protection to the property owner. The state, counties, and cities hold property owners hostage with a gun to their head in the taking of these reservations for road projects. The dollar value of past fraud from 1941-2000 would more then off-set the future savings of the present unreleased reservations. It is time the TIITF Board or the Florida Legislature end this nightmare and injustice. It is time to release all Murphy Act reservations in the land upon which ad valorem taxes have been paid since 1971. Anything else is just wrong!
I call for the Florida legislature, the FDEP, the TIITF Board, FDOT, title companies, and attorneys throughout the state to help CORRECT INJUSTICE and HIGHWAY ROBBERY!
F.S. 197.386 (1972)
Pastor G. Reckart