TIITF ROAD RESERVATIONS STATE OF FLORIDA
By Pastor G. ReckartUncovering Deception & Government Abuse
The Following FDOT Letter
From Secretary Tom Webb, Jr.
Shows What The Procedure For Release Of The TIITF Easements
Were Up Until May 16, 1978
1941-1978=37years The Same Methodology But This Was To Change
Special Notes
These Rules and Regulations were enforced by the FDOT until at least 1991. I have no copies between 1978 and 1991 to show a change before 1991, when new Rules and Policies appear to have been promulgated.
These rules were copied by Hillsborough County and other Counties and used as their own Rules. Following these FDOT Rules and Policies Counties checked to see if the parcel sought for release of the TIITF reservation easement was indeed adjacent to a State Road on the State Highway System. If it was not they made no claim upon the reservation easement. If the TIITF deed did not contain ten acres the reservation was deemed not to exist. It was by these Rules and Policies the the TIITF Board, FDOT, and the several Counties granted release at least from 1943-1978.
But land fraud came into the mind of someone in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Tallahassee and put forth a changed interpretation of roads on the State Highway System and the 10 acre clause. FDOT was in some manner demanded to change the wording of its Rules and Policy which came out in 1991. For over 55 years the Rules and Policy was one way with the TIITF Board, FDOT, and the various Counties, but now under a new FDEP Secretary and staff different treatment of Florida citizens would come forth. What part Jack Wolf of FDEP who handles the requests and releases of TIITF deeds played in this we do not know? We do know he refuses to talk about the former Rules and Polices of the TIITF Board, FDOT, and the various Counties and is very reluctant to give access to public documents of applications citizens submitted for releases between the years 1978-1991. Sooner or later this locked dungeon of files will come open and we will examine who made the changes and when. At issue here is UNJUST ENRICHMENT by the State of Florida at the expense of Florida property owners and title insurance companies.
When the FDEP interpretation of the TEN ACRE CLAUSE was overturned in the Mann case (Mann v. State Road Department, 223 So. 2d 383 (Fla.1at DCA 1969), FDEP issued one of its Orders of Finding of Fact, and claimed the ruling of the Judge was not depositive of the ten acre clause because it applied only to the mineral rights and not the road reservation easements. FDEP with its "Order" overturned the ruling of the Judge in First District Court of Appeals decision. FDEP sat as the Supreme Court of the United States over the decision of the Judge of the First District Court of Appeals. Now that is some POWER. Was a breach of separation of POWERS at work here? This FDEP Order was sent out State wide and the Fund, a title company insuring titles in Florida changed its own rules on underwriting policies with regard to the ten acre clause. I wrote to the Fund and challenged their change in policy based upon a Order of FDEP overturning the Decision of the Judge in the Mann case and that the Order by FDEP was not in itself depositive concerning the 10 acre clause. My efforts met with a stone wall in dealing with the Fund. The attorney speaking for the Fund refused all of my arguments that FDEP had no right to overturn the decision of the Judge in the First District Court of Appeals ruling in the Mann case. With the Fund now supporting FDEP land fraud the State of Florida lined up other title insurors with no fight in them who continue to pay millions of dollars in claims so the State of Florida can subsidize the cost of road building projects and lay claim to millions of acres of free land.
For attorneys with courage and not afraid to fight.
Ask for and obtain from Hillsborough County or what ever County you are in, a copy of their Rules on Murphy Act reservations and easements. Get the Rules back in 1978 for starters and come forward and obtain copies of any changed Rules. Get the latest copy of the rules. Compare them for wording and you will see what I mean by the change in policy. Demand copies of older Rules. You must have this chain of rules to prove different standards have been implemented. Then request who changed them and by what authority? You will discover the ten acre rule was applied to the validity of the reservation and easement. I know it was in Hillsborough County because I saw a copy of the Rules and they contained the very same language as the FDOT rule above. In fact it was copied from FDOT rules. An employee sneaked me a copy under the nose of his boss who was fighting with me at the front desk.
Next, go for the Trustees of the Internal Trust Fund and request copies of its Rules for release of the reservation and easement and begin in 1978 also. Start with the present copy and then demand copies of older rules that these replaced. They will try to hide them and tell you they do not exist. But they do exist and when you obtain the chain of Rules back to 1943 you will easily see what the requirements were for release of the TIITF reservations and easements and how they changed them.
Consider the following points;
1.) The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, case # 585 So, 2d 1029, Hillsborough County v. Kortum, (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1991); ruled that the reservation clause for State Roads did not mean Roads designated State Roads, but rather "public roads." The idea is that by saying State Roads" on the Murphy Act TIITF Deeds it was meant "public roads" and this then gave the State Department of Environmental Protection a right to deed over the TIITF interest in the reservation to counties and cities. This was done by the judge citing Sections 341.09 and 341.28 Florida Statutes (1941) to wit;
341.09 "Road" and "roads" defined. --The terms "road" and "roads" as used in this chapter shall be construed to mean and include all highways and ways for public travel, ...
341.28 "State road" and "department" defined.-- The term "state road" used in this chapter shall be construed to mean any road or part of road which has been or may be established, declared and designated by the legislature as a state road, and of which the location of the line and right of way has been surveyed and fixed upon by the department or its dully authorized engineers and representatives.
Then to add the twist to apply these to the TIITF easement reservation, the idiot judge ruled:
"Subsequently, however, Section 335.04 Florida Statutes (1975) provided a method for DOT to classify all roads within the State. Section 335.01, Florida Statutes (1975) provided that all public roads, extensions thereof, and state highways; (b) state park roads; (c) county roads; and (d) city streets. That method of classification continues today, except that the 1985 Florida Statutes has substituted the phrase "public roads" for "state roads."
He says further in the next paragraph:
"If two constructions of a phrase are equally possible, there is support in the case law to give effect to the construction affirming the interest of the state and its subdivisions, especially where the phrase is ambiguous."
While the idiot judge used the theory of "ambiguous" to expand an hitherto unheard of opinion (that the phrase "State road" really means "public road"), he absolutely refused to take into consideration the actions and the interpretation of what constituted "State Roads" and a valid reservation by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF), the Florida Department of Transportation, and Hillsborough County on the date the Trustees passed their 1940 resolution. How come the lawyers for Mr. Kortum did not already have submitted in the trial General Law of Florida 20659 that identifies all the State Roads in 1941 designated State Roads. Thus proving Murphy Act reservations were not along all PUBLIC ROADS, but rather those designated State Roads. And it is this legislation that is used to determine the validity of a TIITF easement on a property. I question both the professional experience of this law firm and the ability of the attorneys to properly represent their client. I think these lawyers killed their own client in the court room.
The idiot judge totally ignored the intent of the Grantor in the Murphy Act deeds and the acceptance of that intent by the Grantee in accepting conveyance. In other words, the judge paid no heed to the sanctity of the deeds at all and applied Florida Statutes that either did not exist in 1940 or an interpretation that did not exist. And where was the law firm representing Mr. Kortum? Their minds were on Pluto and their lack of proper preparation to cover these issues is SHOCKING! How come they did not present as an exhibit the Administrative Rules of FDOT, the TIITF Board, and FDEP from 1941-1991 on this? How come they did not have a copy of the FDOT and Hillsborough County Rules that show the ten acre clause was applied to validity to TIITF deeds at least until 1991 with NO PROTEST FROM THE Trustees? How come these lawyers did not already have in possession ALL THE RULES of the TIITF Board from 1940 to 1978 and show the continued recognition of what constitutes a State Road for interpretation of these words on the Murphy deeds? How come these lawyers did not present a strong protest that when checking the validation of the reservation reserved on State Roads, the TIITF Board, FDEP, FDOT, and Hillsborough County go straight to Chapters 20658, 20469, 20778, 20595, 20379, and 20377 and see if the street or road address is listed as a State Road? Now any idiot lawyer would use the same tools and weapons the State uses to certify a so-called state road. The judge would have pooped in his pants then to say all roads are state roads when the list of roads to validify a Murphy reservation is contained in legislation of State Roads in 1941 AND NOT PUBLIC ROADS! The idiot judge pulled this stunt right under the nose of Mr. Kortum's lawyers and they were absolutely brain dead. I am not a lawyer but I believe I could have represented Mr. Kortum better then he was.
The idiot Judge did not at all consider that the TIITF board did not object for over 53 years to the manner in which the State Road Department and its successor the Florida Department of Transportation identified State Roads for the easement from 1941 legislation, or the Rules the FDOT and Hillsborough County used to released its claim on reservations based upon the ten (10) acre clause.
This shows us that the first issue here is not if the phrase "State road" means "public roads" but rather, if the ten (10) acre rule is now all of a sudden to be applied differently to property owners after 1991 then before 1978 and the judges make a decision on facts and not his ignorance? At issue here, is if the Rules governing release of the TIITF easements changed so that some successors in title have privilege of release under certain Rules and interpretations which are now denied to others? Is the sanctity between the Grantor and the Grantee profaned. Has someone else slipped in here and injected their mind, a mind which did not exist between the parties of the conveyance? Why are property owners treated differently on these Murphy Act reservations?
Let's look into the whole issue of the Rules and Regulations that the State Road Department and its successor the Florida Department of Transportation have used with the permission and oversight of the TIITF Board for over 53 years.
The test of validity of a TIITF easement was very simple according to the foregoing copied rules:
1.) Applicant for release furnished: (A) Murphy Act Deed Number; (B) Name of County the property on the deed is located; (C) Name of the original Grantee; (D) Date deed was issued; (E) Section, Township, and Range; (F) Name of present title holder; (G) Legal description of the parcel proposed for release; (H) Copy of the original Murphy Act Deed; and (I) A plat sketch of the survey of the land proposed for release. All of this information was to be submitted to the DOT District Office ( Note, as far as we know there was no formal application, only a cover letter requesting the release with items (A) through (I). Formal applications came at some later date. Requests to FDOT and FDEP for copies of all these former applications in the yearly chain for release to observe changes in requirements for release on the application(s) have all been denied. They claim either I am not entitled to them, they do not where they are located, or that they have been destroyed).
2.) The District DOT office would first determine if the parcel proposed for release was located along a State Road ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM or one that is TO COME ON THE SYSTEM. If the road was ON THE HIGHWAY SYSTEM it must next be determined if the the STATE HIGHWAY existed at the time the deed was issued. This Rule and Policy existed from 1941 until 1978 as you can see for yourself in the above image of the letter sent by Secretary Webb to all FDOT Districts throughout the State of Florida and also sent to the various Counties. I obtained the above copy under the table from a Hillsborough County employee who agreed with me what was happening was illegal. However, as an employee he could not advise me, give me information, or comment on the above letter he gave me a copy of. According to him, it was the Rule and the Policy of Hillsborough County in the past not to make a claim on a Murphy Act reservation easement if the parcel conveyed on the deed was less then the ten acres. I did not ask when the Rule and Policy changed and this employee has long since left the Real Estate Department of Hillsborough County. But my point is clear and undeniable. If a parcel was not adjacent to a State Highway ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM it was not considered to exist. There was no test of the ten acre clause at all. But sometime after 1978 and before 1995 the Rule and the Policy changed. No longer was the parcel to be along a State Road on the Highway System, but any road along a designated State Road at the time the deed was issued. This shows us the intent of the reservations was to be along STATE ROADS only. It shows us the street, road, avenue, or highway on which the parcel exist had to be on the State Highway System, and if the road was removed from the State Highway System, or not on the current State Highway System, the reservation no longer existed. This Rule and Policy was applied from 1941 until at least 1978, ...37 years. There are no minutes of the TIITF Board from 1941 to 2005 showing a change to be made in this interpretation. There are no minutes of the TIITF Board from 1941 to 2005 showing any objection to this interpretation as FDOT applied it. There are no minutes of the TIITF Board from 1941 to 2005 objecting whatsoever to the Rules and Policies of the Florida Department of Transportation.
3.) If the parcel was located along a State Road on the State Highway System and a road designated a State Road at the time the deed was issued then the reservation was considered valid providing the parcel conveyed contained more then ten acres. As a rule, the FDOT and the various Counties used the list of State Roads on the State Highway System and then applied the 1941 legislation to determine the existence of a State Road. For all roads to be used as a test of what constituted a "State Road" were those on the State Road Highway System and those listed in that legislation. These two Rules and Policies governed the validity of TIITF reservations on deeds issued from at least 1943 (Note: if these reservations were to be along all public roads, why did they rush through the legislature this massive 1941 legislation to have only certain selected City and County streets and roads designated state roads to make valid the reservations on deeds to be soon issued? How come they didn't just use the language "public roads" if all roads were indicated for validity of the easement? Why was it a rule the parcel had to be adjacent to a State Road ON THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM? And finally, if all public roads was the interpretation of "State Roads" why in 1945 did the Trustees exempt from the Murphy Act Deeds the easement within the city limits of all municipalities?).
4.) If the search revealed a street, road, avenue, or highway was no longer on the State Road Highway System then the decision was no TIITF reservation existed. Even if the road at one time was listed on the State Highway System. If the property was not on State Road in the State Highway System and or if no state road existed on the date of the Murphy Act deed was issued, the FDOT of sent a recommendation to the TIITF Board and suggested a quit claim deed be issued to the current owner of record. If the search revealed there was a valid state road and the reservation on the Murphy Act deed was valid, then the FDOT would check to see if there was a future need for the reservation for State Roads. If there was no future need the FDOT signed off that they released their interest in the reservation. Sometime around 1986 or there about a form was created for FDOT to circulated to the County and to the City to make sure they had no long-range transportation plan for the reservation. When all signed off, then the TIITF Board issued a quit claim deed to the current owner of record. Around 1986 however, this procedure changed. Beginning at least in 1986 various Counties began to request that the FDOT transfer to them their easement interest for County road projects since some of these county roads were once designated State Roads but reclassified County Roads in 1976. This reclassification should have instantly released all the TIITF reservations without any need to apply for a quit claim deed from FDEP or the TIITF Board since the easement would no longer be on a existing State Road. The title would have been quieted by the language of the deed itself and by the Rules and Policy of FDOT which the TIITF Board did not object to for over 37 years at least. Later, by manipulation of definitions of the words "Road, Roads, and State" the idea was then born that the phrase "FOR STATE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY" meant instead " FOR PUBLIC ROAD RIGHT OF WAY." The FDOT directed the TIITF Board to issue quit claim deeds on the easements to the Counties when the Counties requested the easement for road projects. A note of importance here, is that from 1941 when the massive renaming of city and county public roads as "State Roads" took existence by legislative power, ...this theory did not exist. How do we know? Easy! If the easement was for public use on all streets and roads in the State, then there was no need to designate any streets or roads into State roads. But since the Trustee's motion specifically said for State Roads on existing State Roads at the time the deeds were conveyed, it was necessary to designate many City and County streets and roads as State roads so they would qualify for the easement. And if this is not true, why has the DOT since 1941 used the list of roads designated State Roads in the 1941 legislation as the list of roads to determine validity?
Let me explain fully:
The 1941 legislation to designate certain city and county roads as "State Roads" followed on the heels of the 1939 Murphy Act. The TIITF Board had voted on the following motion on 9-17-1940:
"Motion was made and seconded and adopted that easements fro right of ways across lands where a State Road now exists be granted to the State Road Department in those counties where lists of certificates under Chapter 18296 have been furnished the Trustees."
Following this motion it was quickly seen that not all counties had at that time furnished such list to the trustees and so another motion followed that the Comptroller write to the various Clerks of the counties and request the list of certificates not in the presence of the Trustees. There was NO MOTION to add these "unfurnished" list of certificates to the previous motion and or to grant that easements for right of ways be also granted upon them. I have repeatedly ask the Department of Environmental Protection for copies of these list of certificates that were in the possession of the Trustees on the date of this motion, and have met each time with a stone wall. They will not release this information. THIS INFORMATION MUST BE OBTAINED BY DISCOVERY in some future court case. All Murphy act deeds, on which a reservation was later placed, which the trustees did not have the list of certificate against that property on 9-17-1940, were in violation of the motion. There are no Minutes of the Trustees that adds those certificates or properties to the former motion or to a new motion to include them in reservations of the road right of ways. When Murphy Act parcels were sold, the various Counties handling the sales issued deeds on ALL PARCELS and did not attempt to identify which were intended by the 9-17-1940 motion and which were exempt of the easements, due to the certificates not being in the possession of the Trustees on the date of their granting such easements.
Several issues that are herein have never been tried in court. None of these issues have been examined by calling in officials of all the departments and placed under oath and the testimony presented to a Jury.
When the City of Tampa first came out to 40th Street in 1995 to have community meetings concerning the new proposed widening, the TIITF easements came up. Jim Burnside P.E. and project engineer said the TIITF reservations could be removed easily and property owners had no real fears. He was asked how they could be removed. He told us there was a State Statute that allowed property owners who had paid taxes on their parcels to have the reservations released by having the Tax Collector file a certificate proving the taxes had been paid since 1971. Here is that legislation:
FS253.82 Title of state or private owners to Murphy Act lands.--
(1)(a) The interest of the state in any land which was acquired by the state under chapter 18296, Laws of Florida, 1937, but which is listed on a county tax assessment roll as being owned by a person other than the state and on which ad valorem taxes have been paid at least since January 1, 1971, is hereby released to such person. The rights that are released under this subsection are all rights in the land, including state-held subsurface rights.
(b) Upon request by any person, the county tax collector shall record in the official records of the county in which the land is located a certificate that the taxes have been paid since January 1, 1971, by the landowner or the landowner's predecessor in title, if in fact the taxes have been paid. Such certificate is conclusive evidence of that fact.
I personally showed Mr. Burnside this Statute and asked him if it was the correct one? He replied yes! Thereupon, I went to the Tax Collector of Hillsborough County and had him to draw up a Certificate per the Statute and verify the taxes were paid and I filed this with the Clerk of Circuit Court. A couple other property owners did the same. But when Mr. Jack Wolf of the EP Department heard about this, he called the Tax Collector and told him not to file any more Certificates. When others went down to have their Certificates filed to release the TIITF reservation the Tax Collector refused to do so saying he had been told by the State of Florida not to do it. But, I had already gotten my done. And, there is no law that says a Tax Collector cannot file these Certificates today. So, I would advise every attorney to quietly go down and have this certificate filed on every client who has a TIITF reservation on his/her property.
Then, I contacted the Florida Representative who filed this legislation in the first place. I asked him why he filed this legislation and had it passed into law. He told me on the telephone that several Title Companies had complained to him about the TIITF easements and were seeking some relief for property owners and also would relieve them of liability for missed TIITF reservations on their title policies. I asked this legislator if he intended these Tax Collector Certificates to release the TIITF reservations without need of application to the State. He replied yes.
But Mr. Jack Wolf claims differently. He claims the legislator filed the bill creating this Tax Collector Certificate for a different reason. When I asked the Legislator about this, he said that he knew why he did it and Mr. Wolf did not know what he was talking about.
No attorney that I know of has yet to depose this legislator and Mr. Wolf to get out of them their testimony. If the legislator has not died and or has not changed his words, this would convince any judge and jury that failure to release the TIITF reservation after having the Tax Collector's Certificate filed would be illegal.
The last issue here is whether or not some easements do not exist because the certificates upon which they are based were not in the possession of the Trustees on the date of their motion that began the whole process of reservation of right of way for future State Road on Murphy Act parcels.