Case Name: Perla M. HULL, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1954-12-10
Citations: 79 So. 2d 517
Docket Number: 
Parties: Perla M. HULL, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
Judges: MATHEWS, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and BARNS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 79
Pages: 517–519

Head Matter:
Perla M. HULL, Appellant, v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.
Dec. 10, 1954.
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1955.
Charles A. Powers, Jr., Jacksonville, for appellant.
Dixon, Dejarnatte & Bradford and Joseph F. Jennings, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
BARNS, Justice.
At final hearing upon complaint, answer and stipulated facts the plaintiff's bill to quiet title to land was dismissed; thereupon, plaintiff appealed upon the ground that the chancellor erred in the decree by finding the equities with the defendant and not for the plaintiff. In this assignment we concur and reverse.
Appellant presents five points relied on for reversal, but it seems that it will only be necessary to pass on the fifth as follows:
The equities are with the appellant as sole heir of her husband, who procured title to the land involved in 1927 by warranty deed, which deed was not recorded until 1950 as against the defendant-appellee holding recorded judgments entered in 1932, 1933 and 1935 against the husband's grantor, which grantor appeared of record to be the owner of the land until the husband's deed was recorded in Í 950; execution to enforce one of said judgments has been levied on the land but no execution sale of the land has occurred.
Owners of land claiming through unrecorded deeds are estopped to assert their title against purchasers or mortgagees for a valuable consideration without notice by reason of section 695.01 F.S.A., which provides:
"Conveyances to be- recorded. — No conveyance, transfer or mortgage of real property, or of any interest therein, nor any lease for a term of one year or longer, shall be good and effectual in law or equity against creditors or subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be recorded according to law,-
The lien of a judgment attaches only to the land of the judgment debtor, Hunter v. State Bank of Florida, 65 Fla. 202, 61 So. 497, and if the record title is in the judgment debtor but the true or equitable title is in a third person, such rights of the third person as against the judgment creditor are superior when thp true owner is not estopped to' assert the true title. Hunter v. State Bank of Florida, supra; First National Bank of Arcadia v. Savarese, 101 Fla. 480, 134 So. 501, 504; Arundel Debenture Corporation v. LeBlond, 139 Fla. 668, 190 So. 765; Laganke v. Sutter, 137 Fla. 71, 187 So. 586. The true owner is estopped to assert his title against bona fide purchasers who rely upon the record title and are without notice of the interest of the true owner.
Willys-Overland v. Blake, 97 Fla. 626, 131 So. 884, on the point now in question has by implications been overruled by the Savarese, LeBlond and Sutter cases, supra.
The appellee-defendant-judgment creditor, not being a purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration, without notice, the decree appealed from is reversed for the entry of an appropriate decree.
ROBERTS, C. J., and HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.