In short: In Department of Transportation v. Mid-Peninsula Realty (2d DCA, July 29, 2015), a Pasco County buyer claimed land FDOT had condemned for a drainage canal in 1971, using a 1974 “wild deed” as its root of title. The Second DCA reversed a judgment quieting title in the buyer. MRTA’s right-of-way exception can cover land FDOT holds in fee, if FDOT proves it used it.
The Facts
In 1970 FDOT began condemning 14 Pasco County parcels for the Bear Creek watershed drainage canal, north of SR 52 and west of US 19. The order of taking was entered in 1971.
One parcel was taken by a stipulated order vesting full ownership in FDOT.
In 1974 the former owners conveyed the same parcel by a “wild deed,” which became the root of title under MRTA. Mid-Peninsula took title in 2008.
FDOT maintenance crews drove over the parcel to reach the canal and a bridge, and FDOT once asked a company to remove sheds and vehicles stored there.
Relying on Dardashti Properties (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), the trial court ruled the MRTA right-of-way exception does not cover land held in fee and quieted title in Mid-Peninsula.
The Decision
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded (Case No. 2D14-305, July 29, 2015, on remand from the Florida Supreme Court; opinion by Judge Morris).
In Florida DOT v. Clipper Bay Investments (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court disapproved Dardashti and held the § 712.03(5) exception can protect a right-of-way held in fee simple, not just as an easement.
The exception still requires proof that FDOT actually used at least part of the right-of-way, a question the trial court never reached, so the case was remanded.
The court affirmed that the separate possession exception in § 712.03(3) did not apply; periodic access plus ownership is not possession.
The Law
Section 712.03(5) exempts from MRTA extinguishment recorded or unrecorded easements and rights-of-way in use, including those held by government agencies. Clipper Bay extended that to fee-held rights-of-way.
The video title calls this an eminent domain “Section 5” question; the Section 5 at issue is MRTA’s § 712.03(5), not the eminent domain chapters.
Lessons
- A clean 30-year chain does not always beat a government right-of-way. Check for canals, drainage and road projects.
- Title searches for land near public infrastructure should include old condemnation records.
- Government owners should document their use of right-of-way land.
- Wild deeds can create MRTA roots of title, but exceptions can still defeat them.
Watch the Oral Argument
This is the recording of the oral argument. The video title refers to “Dardashti vs. Clipper Bay”; those are the precedents, and this case is DOT v. Mid-Peninsula Realty. What lawyers and judges say at argument is not the ruling; the decision is summarized above.
FDOT Right-of-Way and the Marketable Record Title Act | DOT v. Mid-Peninsula Realty, 2D14-305
Go Deeper
- “Less and Except” Means Not Yours: Deed Carve-Outs and Tax Deeds (Garden State v. Shazbop)
- Hidden Buyer, $13M Sale: A Seller’s Fraud Claim Gets Revived (Puleo v. Cohen)
- Deed in Lieu Held in Escrow: Court Can Order Foreclosure Instead (Safe Harbor v. 9775 Dixie)
Frequently Asked Questions
Can the Marketable Record Title Act extinguish FDOT’s right-of-way?
Not if the § 712.03(5) exception applies. Clipper Bay held it can cover fee-held rights-of-way, but the agency must show use.
What is a wild deed?
A deed from someone outside the record chain of title, which can still become a root of title under MRTA.
Does driving across land count as possession under MRTA?
Not by itself. Mid-Peninsula held periodic access was not possession under § 712.03(3).
Where can I read MRTA?
Chapter 712, Florida Statutes, free on floridarules.net.
Talk to a Florida real estate litigation lawyer
Weidner Law, P.A. handles Florida real estate, landlord-tenant, condominium and property disputes from St. Petersburg. If you need a real estate litigation lawyer, call (727) 954-8752 or email weidner@mattweidnerlaw.com.
Read the law yourself, free: the full Florida Statutes and court rules are on floridarules.net.
This article is general information about Florida law, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it, watching the videos, or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
