FDEP Declaratory Statement
Mann v. State Road Department
FDEP File No.:
96-1305
By Pastor G. Reckart
There are eight (8) image files of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) 1996 Declaratory Statement (DS) concerning the Mann v. State Road Department case (Mann v. State Road Department, 223 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969).
I have made them into eight files so attorneys could copy them down easily. I have a lot of comments concerning this Declaratory Statement. I sent two letters to the FDEP and received one reply. On May 1, 1997 and again on September 4, 1997 I sent two letters to FDEP Secretary Virginia B. Wetherell. I copied my last letter to Governor Lawton Chiles, members of the TIITF Board, Senator James "Jim" Hargrett, and Representative Faye Culp. I received one reply from attorney F. Perry Odom, FDEP General Counsel. Governor Chiles and the members of the TIITF Board refused to respond to my letters.
If any attorney would like a copy of those letters to review my response to the Declaratory Statement I will be happy to fax them if you will request them. Call 813-238-7283 and leave your name and fax number.
I want to point out some very important points that should not be over looked contained in the Declaratory Statement.
1.) The Declaratory Statement relies upon the minutes of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) Board to interpret the Mineral and road reservations on Murphy Act Deeds. Since FDEP has set the precedent that the minutes of the TIITF Board establishes "intent" of the grantor in Murphy Act Deeds, we shall apply this "Conclusion of Law" of FDEP to all minutes of the TIITF Board not just the ones FDEP wants to pick and choose.
2.) On page 2 of the DS, the FDEP Secretary quotes the language on a Murphy Deed which Seminole County (Petitioner) requested an interpretation of the 10 acre clause on Murphy Act Deeds. It is clear the reservation of both mineral rights and road reservation easements were to be valid "AS TO LANDS IN TRACTS OR COMPOSITE TRACTS AGGREGATING TEN (10) ACRES OR MORE:". The reservation easement on State Road Right of Way was to be on "any State Road existing" on the date of the issue of the Murphy Act Deed. The words: "any State Road existing" means all State Roads on the State Roadway System. This identification is called classification wherein certain roads are classified to the State, County, and City. Each would be responsible for the building, maintenance, and upkeep of those classified to their jurisdiction. There was a functional reclassification of State Roads in 1978 and many were removed from the State Roadway System and given over to the various Counties. My point here is that when the Minutes of the TIITF Board show the Grantor's intention of who is to benefit from these road reservations, it is the STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT. The validity of a Murphy Act reservation would be determined by checking if a State Road existed at the date of issue of the Murphy Deed. This is a vital point because if the Grantor intended by the reservation that the State Road Department be the ONLY entity for which the road easement is reserved, then if the State Road Department does not use it, IT IS NOT A VALID reservation. There is no language in the Minutes of the TIITF Board that these easements shall inure to the benefit of other political subdivisions of the State for their roadway systems. There is no Minutes of the TIITF Board that shows the intent of the Grantor of the TIITF Deed, that these reservation easements should inure to Counties or Cities if the State Road Department does not need or want them. We must turn to the Minutes of the TIITF Board to establish who these road easements were set aside for. Since FDEP has set the precedent of the intent of the Grantor using these Minutes, they become the ONLY source of discovering what the language on a TIITF Deed means.
3.) On Page 3 FDEP quotes the May 1, 1940 Minutes that shows the intent of the road easements were to be reserved "through any lands across which there was a designated state highway." By "state highway" the intent of the Grantor is clearly those on the State Roadway System by classification. State highway is singled out separately from County and City highways. If these reservations were to be reserved for the State and all political subdivisions, the road easement would have been reserved "through any lands across which there was a designated State, County, or City highway." Since the Grantor did not include this intent, it must be asserted it was not contained in the language of the Deed no matter how a person wants to understand it in their own mind differently. No one should have the authority to change the intent of the Grantor, NO ONE!
FDEP then quotes the Minutes of the TIITF Board dated January 9, 1941. Newly elected Trustees were advised that Murphy Act deeds were being issued that contained a reservation of 200; for right-of-way for all existing state roads." The new members approved the continuation of this policy (Trustee Minutes Volume XXiii, Page 4). Please note here that the new members were ratifying the intent of the Grantor (the TIITF Board), without change. Please note also that what took place on January 9, 1940 was seventeen (17) months BEFORE THE SWEEPING ROAD GRAB OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE signed into law by the Governor on June 3, 1941. It was necessary to grab hundreds of thousands of County and City roads and add them to the State Roadway System in order for the Murphy Act reservations of minerals and road easements would have been valid. If the intent of the Grantor (the TIITF Board) was for these road easements was for State Roads and this is why so many thousands were reclassified by the Legislature as such, then the TIITF road easements are valid ONLY ON A STATE ROAD. And if a road needed added to the State Highway System to make the reservation valid, if the road was dropped from the State Roadway System they would become INVALID!
Note on Page 3 that FDEP says the ten acre clause was first added to the reservations on November 9, 1943 (Minutes Volume XXIV, Page 419). According to this statement, the Trustees voted to include mineral reservations as required by Florida Statutes Section 270.11 (1943). I have researched this Statute as it now exist in 2004 but not back in 1943 to determine if a ten acre clause was a legislative act. If the ten acre clause was not a legislative act within the said Statute then the Trustees acted on their own administrative power to incorporate it on the Murphy Act deeds. That the ten acre clause is set off with a colon from the mineral reservations and road reservations indicates both are subparagraphs in a list of items covered by the phrase before the colon. Colons are used to set off lists. If road reservations were not intended to be a part of that set off by the colon there would have been a period at the end of the first paragraph. The colon in place before the list of two items and there being no period after the first item, indicates the ten acres clause applies to road reservations. FDEP in the way it structured its language on this on page 3 would lead the reader to assume the ten acre clause was part of the statute regarding mineral reservations and that is how it came to be on the Murphy Act deeds and should apply ONLY TO MINERAL AND PETROLEUM RIGHTS. The ten acre clause was not a legislative act within F.S. 270.11 (1943) and the FDEP purposely misled Seminole County and every other individual who might place weight upon their so-called Findings of Fact. Below is an image of F.S. 270.11 (2004) and there is no mandatory ten acre clause. I do not think it was removed from previous legislation. Also, the legislature released all reservation right to minerals and petroleum products on parcels under 20 acres (F.S. 270.11 (b) (2004). Review the present Statute 270.11 and see there NEVER WAS a TEN ACRE clause at all. FDEP is guilty of word scheming for the purpose of deceiving. The TEN ACRE clause WAS NOT added to Murphy Act deeds to ONLY reserve mineral or petroleum products rights. The TEN ACRE clause was added by Administrative authority because it was to apply to both the mineral and petroleum products and the road easements. Any interpretation of this other then what I have here is nothing but fraud and support of fraud. Now review the present Statute:
Note on Page 3 that FDEP claims the February 13, 1945 Minutes of the trustees shows a vote of the TIITF Board to change the mineral reservations to be "applicable to all lands OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE limits of any municipality regardless of the acreage and not to be limited to parcels containing ten acres."
On Page 4 of the FDEP Declaratory Statement it is stated the TIITF Board established new language to be included on the NEW APPROVED TIITF DEEDS that excluded land inside the city limits of municipalities. Here is the language in part: "AS TO ALL LANDS, there is reserved unto the State of Florida the title to an undivided one-half of all petroleum and petroleum products, and title to an undivided three-fourths of all other minerals which may be found on or under the said land, together with the privilege outside any municipality, this date, to explore for and to mine and develop same." This means any municipality then existing or which would later come into existence. The phrase "AS TO ALL LANDS" must mean all that contained in the parcel conveyed by a TIITF Deed. Certainly this language does not mean ALL LANDS throughout Florida including that privately owned. Now what did the Trustees do about the road easements? Here are the words exactly as they were voted to appear on deeds issued after March 22, 1945: "AS TO ALL LANDS outside of any municipality, as of this date, there is reserved unto the State of Florida an easement for State road right of way two hundred (200) feet wide, lying equally on each side of the center line of any State road existing on the date of this deed through so much of any parcel herein described as is within one hundred (100) feet of said center line." Now what of deeds issued before March 22, 1945 that did not contain these approved new Grantor intents? Did the Grantor mean this on prior conveyances but it was not clearified until 1945. Is it possible the ten acre clause was a way to mean rural lands only since within most citiy limits there were no ten or more acre parcels? What if a deed was issued after this date and the language on it was not what was approved? The precedent set by FDEP is that reservation language that is not in agreement with the intent of the Grantor are invalid. How do we know the intent of the Grantor except to take in all that is said and done. Thus, a Judge relying upon the intent of the Grantor and this determined by the minutes and language on deeds conveyed by the TIITF Board, would of necessity have to rule the intent was for road reservation easements not to fall within a municipality regardless of what language was on an issued deed before or after this date. Also it is a vital point here that the language of the deed, and the intent of the TIITF Board was that the road reservations would be invalid at all future time if the parcel conveyed on the deed was in or came into a municipality. There is nothing in the Minutes of the TIITF Board or in the language of the TIITF deed that the municipality had to exist as of the date of the conveyance of the deed. This means that all TIITF deeds lying within a municipality today should be deemed invalid.
Let me digress here because the FDEP Declaratory Statement does so at this point. The above approved TIITF deed form came about on March 22, 1945, but prior to this date and at least beginning in some Florida Counties in 1944, the wording about the validity of a road easement was determined by the ten acre clause. Here is that important clause: "AS TO LANDS IN TRACTS OR COMPOSITE TRACTS AGGREGATING TEN (10) ACRES OR MORE:" Since this language was dropped on March 22, 1945 and replaced with the municipal clause we see now at least two different intents of the TIITF Board as Grantors. TIITF easements on deeded parcels that did not contain ten acres were to be considered invalid. And TIITF easements on deeded parcels that were in or came within the limits of a municipality were invalid. This must be extracted from the intent of the Grantor, the TIITF Board through its Minutes. No one, not even a Judge should be permitted to change the intent of the Grantor because the Grantee bargained for the property, purchased the property, and accepted delivery of the deed based upon the intent of the parties.
In the FDEP Declaratory Statement Page 6 we find these astonishing words:
"CONCLUSION OF LAW"
"The action taken by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund as set
forth in the Minutes demonstrates an intent to impose the ten acre limitation
on the mineral reservation only and not on the road right-of-way reservation.
The ten acre language was first incorporated in Murphy Act deeds long after
the road right-of way reservation, was added as part of the original
mineral reservation, and was later removed altogether from the
mineral reservation without reference to the road right-of-way
reservation."
Here the FDEP Declaratory Statement contradicts its whole premise in this so-called "CONCLUSION OF LAW." It starts out saying the mineral reservations and road reservations are not tied together jointly under the ten acre clause. Then in the above confess the road right-of-way reservation was "ADDED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL MINERAL RESERVATION."
Ok, granted I am not an attorney, I am just a Preacher trying to find equity for all the people of Florida who have property encumbered with these 60 year old clouds on their titles. I am not a Judge. But when FDEP confesses in its CONCLUSION OF LAW that the road right-of-way reservation was ADDED to the original mineral reservation, and indeed set apart with a semicolon that establishes connectivity: how can they then say the TEN ACRE CLAUSE DOES NOT APPLY TO BOTH since they admit the latter was ADDED TO THE ORIGINAL MINERAL RESERVATION? The words "ADDED and PART" are a confession of the Truth that the Ten Acre Clause applies to both!
The 1996 Declaratory Statement should be torn apart by an attorney who is better at this then I am. There is no reason another property owner should loose property value to the State of Florida or the political subdivisions thereof through this highway robbery. Someone ought to go to prison.
Now, to read the Declaratory Statement click on the pages below and print them out. Print out my comments here and follow them by page number. If you have any questions please feel free to call me (813-238-2783). I have been asked if there is a charge for this information. The answer is there is no charge.
Declaratory Statement
Page 1
Declaratory Statement
Page 2
Declaratory Statement
Page 3
Declaratory Statement
Page 4
Declaratory Statement
Page 5
Declaratory Statement
Page 6
Declaratory Statement
Page 7
Declaratory Statement
Page 8
I have drafted proposed legislation for the 2007 session I hope a Representative and Senator will sponsor and all this ugly mess will go away for ever.
To read other information about the TIITF reservation easements return to the start page.